Slutwalk

[RedCelt69]

Feminism. So it has pro-porn (or porn neutral) and the anti-porn branches? Are there any other binary splits? Do you not think that it is ridiculous and (weakens the cause) to divide humans into male & female and then further divide female into pro and anti (any) particular cause? An army fighting for one thing is a lot stronger than lots of individual units, with their own mandates. Not only are they less likely to win their own cause, they're likely to get caught up with in-fighting with people who share some of their beliefs, but not others.

Saying that those type of feminists aren't the real type of feminist is to use the No True Scot defence.

Here's a radical idea - everyone who is against discrimination (of any kind) unite under one banner. Humanism doesn't have to be a wishy-washy non-entity with no clear direction. It has whatever direction people within it decide to give it. I propose that it should be a direction of equality for all humans. It's a simple goal, but one that receives a lot of objection - including those who are voicing objection in this thread.

I didn't say that feminism is the same as White Pride. I said that both of them concentrate too much on how people differ from one another, rather than how they are the same.

I'm repeating myself, but for some people repetition seems to be required.

"I am the same as you" is a stronger position than "I am different to you".

Tell someone that you're a feminist or a gay-rights campaigner and they'll quickly do 2 things: they'll associate you with their understanding of people who share your interest (and with feminism that's a bad thing... all those non-true feminists, and all) and, if they're not in your sub-group, they'll lose interest in what you're trying to argue.

Tell someone that you're a humanist and they'll have no grounds to distance themselves from what you are saying. What? So my fellow humans should be treated the same as humans like me? I cannot find grounds to argue with that position. If they're bigoted and find that they can argue with that position - then they'll have to think a lot harder about how some humans should be treated differently to other humans.

If everyone who is into equality described themselves as humanists (above and beyond any other allegiance) there would be a solid anti-bigot defence. One army. One mandate.

But hell, why try something radical when it might actually work. Let's keep on concentrating on how our own factor-of-birth makes us different to everyone else. Keep fighting that fight. Because it will be a long one.

[Senethro]

Feminism. So it has pro-porn (or porn neutral) and the anti-porn branches? Are there any other binary splits? Do you not think that it is ridiculous and (weakens the cause) to divide humans into male & female and then further divide female into pro and anti (any) particular cause? An army fighting for one thing is a lot stronger than lots of individual units, with their own mandates. Not only are they less likely to win their own cause, they're likely to get caught up with in-fighting with people who share some of their beliefs, but not others.

I don't know if you've noticed but bowing to authority and marching in step isn't a typical feminist quality. Indeed its something many people anywhere left of centre have trouble with.

Saying that those type of feminists aren't the real type of feminist is to use the No True Scot defence.

Noone said that any of the feminists were not real feminists, but very well done knowing the NTS thing. You'll maybe get a real chance to use it next thread!

Here's a radical idea - everyone who is against discrimination (of any kind) unite under one banner. Humanism doesn't have to be a wishy-washy non-entity with no clear direction. It has whatever direction people within it decide to give it. I propose that it should be a direction of equality for all humans. It's a simple goal, but one that receives a lot of objection - including those who are voicing objection in this thread.

Uh-huh, trying to paint our objection as an objection to equality for all humans. Then again you were just telling us how how all feminists care nothing for the rights of men so at least you're consistent.

Tell someone that you're a feminist or a gay-rights campaigner and they'll quickly do 2 things: they'll associate you with their understanding of people who share your interest (and with feminism that's a bad thing... all those non-true feminists, and all) and, if they're not in your sub-group, they'll lose interest in what you're trying to argue.

No, this is not what everyone does, its what you've described yourself as doing in previous posts!

Tell someone that you're a humanist and they'll have no grounds to distance themselves from what you are saying. What? So my fellow humans should be treated the same as humans like me? I cannot find grounds to argue with that position. If they're bigoted and find that they can argue with that position - then they'll have to think a lot harder about how some humans should be treated differently to other humans.

Heres some grounds, its ineffective.

What have larger identities ever achieved for minorities?

If everyone who is into equality described themselves as humanists (above and beyond any other allegiance) there would be a solid anti-bigot defence. One army. One mandate.

But hell, why try something radical when it might actually work. Let's keep on concentrating on how our own factor-of-birth makes us different to everyone else. Keep fighting that fight. Because it will be a long one.

Really? Really?

Because I remember you complaining that feminists don't look out for your rights as a man.

Huh.

So... you've concentrated on a factor of your birth, and its apparently the principle reason you reject feminism. You even seemed to perceive some kind of threat to your rights from women wanting to advance theirs. This is on top of being a member of the pretty much the most privileged group and so having all the rights anyway.

Well then humanist, are you sure theres room for women in your cause or will you be occupied with ensuring male rights first?

I'm repeating myself, but for some people repetition seems to be required.

This is whats known as disagreement and tends not to be resolved by repeating the same weak arguements.

[Senethro]

Some choice blog quotes:

If you meet a man who tells you that he’s a feminist, ask him if he’s also a masculinist. If he isn’t, ask him why he favours the rights of one gender over the rights of another gender – particularly when that gender isn’t his own. If he claims to also be a masculinist, tell him about humanism. A quick Google will provide the relevant information, but if you want to aid his education, here’s a link to the British Humanist Association.

Again, with the perception that feminism is concerned only with the rights of one gender and that the other gender doesn't have all the rights anyway.

If he maintains his claims to feminism, he’s one of two things: a man who wants to better his chances of getting inside your pants, or an idiot.

Jegus christ

The Royal Society for the Protection and Care of Animals (RSPCA) looks after the welfare of animals. Now, imagine if there was an RSPCFA which just looked after female animals. If you were to make a contribution to an animal-based charity, would you prefer one that looked after all animals, or one that checked between the animal’s legs before deciding whether or not they would help it?

This is privilege working again. RedCelt, blind to his own privilege, tries to compare M+F animals which are similarly oppressed due to being treated similarly, with M+F humans in which there is a clearly less privileged group.

So not only a ridiculous analogy, a wrong one.

Arguing that women have fewer rights than men and that, for that reason, feminism is needed until equality is reached (and humanism can replace it) is a nonsense argument. Some animals are treated much worse than others, but an organisation fighting for all animals is a much stronger and well-equipped beast than one that picks and chooses which animals it will help.

Actually this is exactly what happens. People get all obsessed about bloody useless pandas and other charismatics while ignoring keystone species essential to a healthy, functioning ecosystem.

Edit: I was going to add more but they're making my eyes bleed. Stopping here.

[RedCelt69]

Senethro. I'm tired of hanging this low down the evolutionary tree trying to communicate with you. So, I'll rest my hands, climb back up the tree and let you grunt and growl with people on the same wavelength as you. K? K.

[Senethro]

Senethro. I'm tired of hanging this low down the evolutionary tree trying to communicate with you. So, I'll rest my hands, climb back up the tree and let you grunt and growl with people on the same wavelength as you. K? K.

Yeah, you are quite clearly on another level to me. Are you sure you're not swinging from the branches of that tree with your best bud Diplomacy Monkey?

Does it sting when people don't immediately recognise how much better your definition of humanism is than just about everything? Did those first dates you blogged about where you sternly set forth your anti-feminist views have a sequel?

Will you ever answer the question of what great battles humanists have fought on behalf of less privileged groups? What has been your Stonewall?

[RedCelt69]

There's that <fwat> noise again. Senethro continues to circle...

[wild_quinine]

Senethro. I'm tired of hanging this low down the evolutionary tree trying to communicate with you. So, I'll rest my hands, climb back up the tree and let you grunt and growl with people on the same wavelength as you. K? K.

Paraphrasing the late great Bill Hicks will not get you off the hook, here. Observing this argument from the wings, I would say that you have comprehensively failed to address the range of views presented.

I think the misunderstandings on definitions could have been cleared up (on both sides) without unnecessary roughness, but there's been a lot more to this thread.

Now I don't wish to take a firm side here on the arguments as demonstrated, partly because I've seen arguments put forwards that I don't fully agree with (but that I think have nevertheless have brought a lot of value to the thread), and partly because I also share your distaste for positive discrimination as a means to an end.

But I don't think you've done yourself justice. I think you've retreated into petulance long before you've validated yourself.

The question of privillege, for example, is one that has gone resolutely unanswered. I can tell you personally that I would have been dismissive of such an argument at one time. But I have had experiences which have forced me to accept that it is a valid viewpoint, even if it's not the whole story.

And this is one of those lovely meta-arguments that carries a special payload, because if you are not in a position to understand it, or if you pooh-pooh or dismiss it... well that actually looks rather like evidence against you.

But I think the worst thing in many ways is your constant appeal to humanism. What sort of a thing do you think that Humanism is?

Honestly, even if you really thought there was no merit to the arguments in this thread, bringing them into the fold would have been a lot better than getting your back up.

Or is Humanism an elite club, with membership made available only to those who are deserving? I hadn't realised. I rather thought that it wouldn't work if it was all tribal and cliquey.

But that's not like you. You're usually a good deal more methodical, logical.

Perhaps you thought it wouldn't matter. But apparently, there are some privilleges that you don't have.

[QueerCommunist]

So, could you please explain to me how your humanist ideals fit your current "I will not talk to you lowly people or answer any of your questions, because I am a superior being" (as your analogies imply: higher up the tree, great light bulb)? Maybe, I am too dim-witted myself, but that does not sound like you are too keen on equality then, if the 'poor misguided feminists' do not even deserve a reply to, what appears to me, is a very valid question:

"What would be the humanist's Stonewall?"


- - - - - -

"He who stands aloof runs the risk of believing himself better than others and misusing his critique of society as an ideology for his private interest." Theodor W. Adorno

[jollytiddlywink]

Saying that those type of feminists aren't the real type of feminist is to use the No True Scot defence.

Nobody said they weren't the 'real' feminists. But you yourself did try to say that they're doing it wrong (a bit rich for someone who identifies as an anti-feminist). I note you don't identify yourself as an anti-LGBT rights campaigner... something your argument would seem to demand that you do.

Humanism doesn't have to be a wishy-washy non-entity with no clear direction.

...but it is. Where is the humanist Stonewall, to repeat the question you have pointedly failed to answer? How many humanists threw themselves under the King's horse? How many humanists went on hunger strikes to get women the vote?

It has whatever direction people within it decide to give it.

Exactly the same can be said of feminism, or the civil rights campaign, or the effort against apartheid, or the LGBT rights movement, or...
Suppose that half the people within humanism adopted a pro/neutral to porn stance, and the rest adopted an anti-porn stance... you'll have the same situation you just used to condemn feminism, except because now its humanism, you'd see it as a strength. Pot calling kettle!

I propose that it should be a direction of equality for all humans. It's a simple goal, but one that receives a lot of objection - including those who are voicing objection in this thread.

Really? Objections from whom? I think the only person who *might* be accused of objecting to equality is macgamer, although I suspect he'd argue against that. Anyone who takes issue with the claim that your equality is bigger and better than anyone else's (privileged position, much?) is anti-equality now? Really?

Tell someone that you're a feminist or a gay-rights campaigner and they'll quickly do 2 things: they'll associate you with their understanding of people who share your interest (and with feminism that's a bad thing... all those non-true feminists, and all) and, if they're not in your sub-group, they'll lose interest in what you're trying to argue.

So when I identified myself as a feminist and a gay rights (we prefer LGBT... its less privileged!) campaigner, did you mentally file me into a sub-group and lose interest in my argument? If not, why do you think that your mental process is so much brilliantly better than the mental processes of other humans?

Tell someone that you're a humanist and they'll have no grounds to distance themselves from what you are saying.

That's all well and good, but what you've done on this threat is to tell everyone you're a humanist, and everyone has disagreed with you, and Senethro at least (and I'm inclined to follow him) has distanced himself from you.


Redcelt, take note of what Senethro, WQ and QueerCommunist have all said. You've lost this one, hands down, and posting silly photos of lightbulbs is doing nothing to help matters.

[RedCelt69]

One day, I think that I'll just go ahead and grab a knitting needle so that I can perform a self-lobotomisation. Perhaps then, I'll enjoy Britain's Got Talent, Strictly Come Dancing and The X-Factor. And perhaps I'll also be able to approach debates with the level that has been portrayed by some of you. Perhaps.

Where to start?

OK. First off, I haven't addressed (in detail) the issue of privilege because it is an established certainty that yes, as a white straight male, I have had a social strength that isn't experienced by women, non-whites and LGBTs. I have already said that such a privilege shouldn't exist in the first place. I have also said that, given my social status, I am entitled to hold the same views as if I didn't hold such a status. The argument put forward is, what? That I'm not allowed to be anti-feminism because I'm male? Or that, given my social status, I'm not allowed to be anti-feminist? Or that it's too easy to be anti-feminist, what with me being male?

In what way - whatsoever - has that got fuck all to do with the position that I am giving? I'm not against women's rights and the needs of women to express those rights. Very simply, I'm saying that the fight would best be served from a different perspective. What the fuck has that got to do with my privileged position? I have acquaintances who totally agree with my given position. They're women. Are they allowed to have that position? What with them not being so privileged? If you believe that they can hold that view and that I can't hold that view - then you're a sexist. You really fucking are. If that opens up an area of your personality that you're not happy about approaching then that is your problem. It certainly isn't mine.

QueerCommunist. Misanthropy and humanism are not mutually exclusive. I could hate every single person on the planet, without exception, and still be a humanist. As a humanist, I appreciate all of the great things that have been (and can be) achieved by humans. Everything we've done, we've done with our own hands, our own brains. No gods required. It is this aspect of humanism that is most widely endorsed by atheists - particularly in the USA.

Equally, every human on the planet has the same right to everything as every other human. This one statement, above and beyond every other, rejects every kind of discrimination that there is - when we're talking about aspects bestowed at conception and birth. Every human being then has the right, from that position of equality, to make them undeserving of consideration. Pro-life people don't deserve my consideration. Racists don't deserve my consideration... the list is a long one, and I'll stop it there. But basically, at birth, every single one of us has (or should have) an equality of opportunities. What we then do with our lives is altogether up for a cessation of consideration. Especially (and predominantly) when we seek to prevent others from enjoying the same privileges as ourselves.

“I am a misanthropic humanist… Do I like people? They’re great, IN THEORY.” - Bill Hicks

Wild_quinine, humanism is what humanists make it.

Does humanism need a Stonewall moment? I'm suggesting an alteration in how people view the world (and themselves). I'm not suggesting that we should go out and riot. If humanism had been widespread 41 years ago, Stonewall wouldn't have been necessary. I'm talking about the here and now, not the distant past. Unless we suggest to politicians that the best way for them to judge how to govern is to look at how Britain looked in 1969 rather than how it looks now. The fight for the rights of women, non-whites and LGBT has strengthened the accessibility of widespread humanism. It has made it more acceptable to forget the things that make us different to one another.

Not one of you has addressed that point, with anything that could be called merit. Tell me why this isn't true:
"I'm the same as you" > "I'm different to you"

And yes, Jollytiddlywink, I hold that position when it comes to every avenue of fighting inequality. If the fight was made with one voice, rather than many, it would be a very loud and convincing voice. And that simple point seems to be lost on some of you... that I'm not advocating that these fights cease. They should very much continue - as a united voice from the perspective of humanism.

You can lay false-trails about privilege all you like, but it is tangential (to the extreme) to what I'm proposing. If you can't see that then I have no option but to assume that you're not playing with a full deck of cards. (Diplomacy Monkey intervened, there).

Honestly, the descriptions of feminism you give fit an objectionable, tiny corner of "feminism", which the vast majority of other feminists range from being uncomfortable with to denying that it has anything remotely to do with feminism at all. "Women are best!"or "women should be in charge!" -type things are, emphatically, Not feminism. (They're part of a small number of folk's version of feminism, but it's not what feminism Is.) Apart from the extremists' corner, feminists are extremely pissed off at the whole factors-from-birth thing mattering. It's called "feminism" not because it's the "yay women" movement, but because when it started, women were severely disadvantaged compared to men, so to consider issues relating to gender without that weighting, women's views and experiences have to deliberately be given time and space in order to be heard...I'm sorry you've had bad experiences with people who claimed to be, or you thought were, feminists. I can only say, the feminism you describe is not representative; not even close.

I've seen this exact same argument (with the necessary word changes) when Christians have seperated themselves from the actions of Christian extremists - whether it was the Spanish Inquisition (nobody expected that), the burning of witches or Pro-Life nutters who kill abortion clinicians. They're not actually Christians. Christianity isn't about that. Christianity is about my version of Christianity. The defence (there and here) is the No True Scot defence.

I've had several female friends. None of them were feminists. They weren't masochists revelling in subservience to men. They were self-determining, free-willed individuals who expected nothing less from life than if they were male. But they weren't feminists. I didn't ask them why... but, given this conversation, I'm wishing that I had. Regardless of their reasons, they didn't identify with the belief system. If feminism is so friendly, cuddly and inclusive to women (and men) why does it remain a fringe belief system?

Feminism isn't just to benefit women. It's to benefit everyone, including men

It doesn't fight for male rights, does it? The fight is a much smaller one, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be happening. If you think otherwise, or you think that - because we're barely escaping from millennia of patriarchy - that male rights can be ignored... then you're sexist. Humanism doesn't make that distinction. Feminism does.

My beliefs are the same as the parts of feminism that don't include the circumvention of men. Providing videos (/wave QueerCommunist) of the inequalities faced by women is a case of preaching to the choir. I wish every woman had the exact same opportunities in life as every man. The weak of mind can take my anti-feminism and assume that I'm against the fight for women's rights. Because thinking inside the box is so much easier than stepping out of the box.

Is my position clearer now, or should I go fetch the knitting needle?

[RedCelt69]

Toronto couple defend move to keep baby's sex secret

[G13]

RedCelt, don't try to goad me, or believe that using dramatic imagery will make people think that your interlocuter Must be stupid to frustrate you so much. I'm sure people can decide for themselves based on what's actually written. And your "diplomacy monkey" does not paint you as the oh-so-patient martyr, but rather as passive-aggressive.

I clearly said that what you describe fits one corner of feminism; I did not say that it wasn't feminism. I clearly said that there is not One feminism, but many feminists with a range of views: that completely negates your suggestion that I believe "my" version of feminism is The feminism, because I'm saying there is no The feminism. I clearly said that what you describe, the vast majority of feminists do not subscribe to. What you describe exists, and is said by a small number of people who identify as feminists; it is not The feminism, because a) there is no such thing, and b) the majority of feminists do not subscribe to it.

I am no lover of organised religion, but in this case, I have sympathy with the folk who wish to differentiate themselves from extremists. Three words: Westboro Baptist Church. Aka, God Hates Fags. Those people call themselves Christians. For Christians whose foundation of faith is love for other human beings, that group's hate is disgusting. Whether they are christians or not is perhaps debatable, but I have no problem with other christians saying, "that is not what *I* believe, that is not how *I* interpret the bible, and that is not what *I* believe christianity to be". People have different opinions, and when another group of people interpret something that one believes is good and is important to one in a way that one finds repellant, of course one will disagree. Your example of religion is only partly relevant, though, because unlike religion, many feminists do not believe there is one correct universal version of feminism. Different people have different views about which issues should be focused on and how aims should be achieved, usually according to each person's life experiences and angle on the world. That is a strength when put together, because no single individual's world-view can possibly cover all of life's possible experiences; involving more angles and learning from other people broadens one's knowledge and makes one's actions applicable to a wider range of people.

With regard to "I'm the same as you" vs. "I'm different to you". On the face of it, it does seem that "I'm the same as you" is the stronger position, and my personal preference is to find that ground wherever possible, as should be evident. However, in the world generally, attempting to apply a blanket "I'm the same as you" in an assimilationist way tends to have the effect of ignoring and denying experiences that do not fit the expected picture, and so sidelining the people who have them. "I'm the same as you" is great, up to the point where the "sameness" represented is Not the same. Different people who have a different life to me have different experiences, and that means they see things differently. Which of us, them or me, should give up our experience of reality so that we can be "the same?" I believe it's important to listen to someone's differences to learn that I only see the world the way I do because of where I fit in it, as does everyone else. Often it's important to be able to articulate the differences in order to move beyond them. Acknowledging differences while establishing common ground.

Feminism does not fight for male rights in general because, purely on gender, men are the best off; to get all groups to the ideal point of equality, the group that's furthest behind needs more work. Feminism does not ignore men's rights as human beings: when discussing issues of race, for example, men are very much part of the consideration. Feminism does fight for men when they are disadvantaged by the gender system, as I hope I made clear. However, whenever men are disadvantaged by said gender system, it seems to be because they are trying to do something perceived as "feminine". It benefits everyone if things coded "female" or "feminine" are no longer inferior, because men will no longer be given grief for being or wanting them. I'm absolutely behind any move that stops men being disadvantaged by the gender system, but from where I'm sitting, the concept of "man" doesn't need to fight for rights on the gender axis, because he has them all. The problem is that no individual totally fits the social concept of "man", so men get screwed over too.

And I have to disagree about your assessment of male feminists. You may not agree with them, but these men are neither trying to get into someone's pants nor idiots. Oh, and they talk about men.
http://hugoschwyzer.net/category/men-and-masculinity/
http://criticalmasculinities.wordpress.com/

As far as I'm concerned, any person, man or woman, has a perfect right to be anti-feminist. I may disagree with their reasons. I know people who have entirely understandable reasons for not wanting to identify as a feminist, some of which are also the reason for my repeated "(mostly)"s. My question at you is not that you hold the view, but that you campaign for it and tell people how wrong feminism is without, apparently, knowing much about feminism at all.

[G13]

Having checked up the "one true scot" thing, I'm definitely not doing that. That would have gone something like, "All feminists care about men!....Oh, They aren't really feminists; all True feminists care about men!", which I clearly didn't say.

That strand of the conversation appears to have gone more like: RC: feminism doesn't care about men. G13: Most feminists care about men. Feminist here; *I* care about men. RC: feminism doesn't care about men! G13: ?

RedCelt appears to be more committed to keeping his hostility towards (his idea of) feminism than in reading what's written.

Seconding Jollytiddlywink's suggestion that to be consistent, RedCelt would also need to be anti LGBTQI* rights on the grounds that it doesn't say anything about hetero folk's rights.

[G13]

(A note: there's stuff relevant to Jollytiddlywink, macgamer and Hennessy lower on the third page - apologies for unreg time-lag issue.)

Regarding macgamer's terminology: I don't particularly agree with what you're doing here, but I understand where you're coming from and what you're trying to achieve. Personally, I interpret "man with same sex attraction" as refering to any man who has any degree of same-sex attraction; if you want it to mean "predominantly", I think you have to say "predominantly".

On the subject of same-sex parents, I pass you over to someone who speaks with a good deal more authority and eloquence than I.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

Jollytiddlywink, thanks for the inclusivity. Whenever I see/hear "gay rights", I always think, well, I'm not a man, nor am I lesbian: do you or do you not mean me? Or do you Think you mean me, but actually have nothing in your outlook/actions that include/is relevant to me? And I meant to say before, I'm well aware of the grim background to it, but the image of loads of straight people looking utterly bemused at being denied pink triangles was hilarious. Thanks also for your writing on identity - I appreciate hearing your perspective very much, and you expressed it better than I would've.

About the Kinsey scale, mentioned by Jollytiddlywink and macgamer. I appreciate that some people find it a really useful tool for expressing their own orientation, and that's fine by me, I've got no wish to take it away from them, but I would like to say that it's not an adequate tool for expressing everybody's orientation. There are people whose orientation just can't be expressed that way. For example, a bisexual person who is more attracted to men one day, or week, and women another: their orientation at one particular time can be pinpointed on the scale, but what about their overall orientation? People who like masculine identifying and/or presenting folk - masculine men and not feminine men, butch women, butches? People who like androgynous folk? People who like most identities/presentations other than masculine men? The list could continue. Personally, I'd say it's fine for folk to express their own orientation on the scale, but not to ask someone else to do so, or to try to fit anyone else onto the scale. Some folk will just not be able to answer the question, and it suggests that orientations outside of the scale just aren't in the asker's world-view.

On the original topic, I missed another reason why the police officer shouldn't've said what he said. When a police officer says something like that, it suggests to victims of sexual assault that the police are not necessarily going to believe them and help them, and could even blame them. That's not encouraging people to report it. I would hate to have to report something to a person who held those views, and I'm not sure I'd go through with it. And people wonder why reporting rates are so low.

[jollytiddlywink]

Very simply, I'm saying that the fight would best be served from a different perspective.

That may be, I didn't see any humanists getting arrested in Moscow yesterday in the cause of gay rights. There were no humanists marching in Britain in the early part of the last century for women's suffrage. Whenever you want to step out of your fantasy and address reality, please do. As you yourself said:

The fight for the rights of women, non-whites and LGBT has strengthened the accessibility of widespread humanism.

In other words, feminists, LGBT rights campaigners and civil rights activists (all those people you refuse to be associated with) have been doing humanists a favour, and NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND!

Wild_quinine, humanism is what humanists make it.

Its a pity then that humanists don't seem to making much of anything out of it, except a big argument. And, if humanism is what humanists make of it, why is feminism what you insist it is, and not what feminists make of it? I imagine that G13 would identify as a feminist, but you've rubbished the definition of feminism that G13 offered, and insisted on using your own.

Feminism isn't just to benefit women. It's to benefit everyone, including men

It doesn't fight for male rights, does it?

THAT is what we're on about when we talk of privilege. Your assertion that any movement which doesn't fight for your rights (as a white, middleclass, cisgender heterosexual university-educated male) should be criticised for failing to do so would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
Feminism is fighting for rights for women because women need rights, and that fight must be fought. If you, as a humanist, want everyone to be equal, you ought to applaud any and all efforts that bring that closer, regardless of your own (entirely theoretical) assertion that it could be better done another way (I say theoretical because you can't point to any ACTUAL ACTION by humanists). And if you (being a man, remember) want an equal world, feminism is doing more in that regard to benefit you than you are.

And in your last remark, about "is my position clear now... or knitting needle?" your position is clearer, but you've shown it to be shot through with contradictions and what looks like a nasty sense of spite, while you lecture all of us supposed evolutionary dead-ends from the height of your enlightened cleverness. The Sinner gets enough holier-than-thou from macgamer. Let's not have it from you, too, please.

[Senethro]

One day, I think that I'll just go ahead and grab a knitting needle so that I can perform a self-lobotomisation. Perhaps then, I'll enjoy Britain's Got Talent, Strictly Come Dancing and The X-Factor. And perhaps I'll also be able to approach debates with the level that has been portrayed by some of you. Perhaps.

Where to start?

Always a favorite, open with something to get a discerning audience on your side and that also calls your opponents stupid.

OK. First off, I haven't addressed (in detail) the issue of privilege because it is an established certainty that yes, as a white straight male, I have had a social strength that isn't experienced by women, non-whites and LGBTs. I have already said that such a privilege shouldn't exist in the first place. I have also said that, given my social status, I am entitled to hold the same views as if I didn't hold such a status. The argument put forward is, what? That I'm not allowed to be anti-feminism because I'm male? Or that, given my social status, I'm not allowed to be anti-feminist? Or that it's too easy to be anti-feminist, what with me being male?

The argument: Privilege exists, is a problem, and is liable to be overlooked or even downplayed using large umbrella identities.

Given that you're a member of a privileged group who has declared himself anti-feminist because you believe feminists don't fight for your rights (g13 disagrees), are we wrong to get an impression of you of wanting to protect your privilege and having biased judgement?

In what way - whatsoever - has that got fuck all to do with the position that I am giving? I'm not against women's rights and the needs of women to express those rights. Very simply, I'm saying that the fight would best be served from a different perspective. What the fuck has that got to do with my privileged position? I have acquaintances who totally agree with my given position. They're women. Are they allowed to have that position? What with them not being so privileged? If you believe that they can hold that view and that I can't hold that view - then you're a sexist. You really fucking are. If that opens up an area of your personality that you're not happy about approaching then that is your problem. It certainly isn't mine.

Do you also have black friends, so you can't be a racist? A clean and articulate Black Friend goes a long way, everyone should make one.

Its not sexist, its positive discrimination. You've spoken about memes before, is it so impossible you've been influenced by patriarchal memes to the extent that for the sale of balance, a little intellectual affirmative action should be employed to consciously counter an unconscious bias?

QueerCommunist. Misanthropy and humanism are not mutually exclusive. I could hate every single person on the planet, without exception, and still be a humanist. As a humanist, I appreciate all of the great things that have been (and can be) achieved by humans. Everything we've done, we've done with our own hands, our own brains. No gods required. It is this aspect of humanism that is most widely endorsed by atheists - particularly in the USA.

Equally, every human on the planet has the same right to everything as every other human. This one statement, above and beyond every other, rejects every kind of discrimination that there is - when we're talking about aspects bestowed at conception and birth. Every human being then has the right, from that position of equality, to make them undeserving of consideration. Pro-life people don't deserve my consideration. Racists don't deserve my consideration... the list is a long one, and I'll stop it there. But basically, at birth, every single one of us has (or should have) an equality of opportunities. What we then do with our lives is altogether up for a cessation of consideration. Especially (and predominantly) when we seek to prevent others from enjoying the same privileges as ourselves.

“I am a misanthropic humanist… Do I like people? They’re great, IN THEORY.” - Bill Hicks

Could you leave this kind of edgy misanthropy to Charlie Brooker other experienced practitioners? Thx.

Wild_quinine, humanism is what humanists make it.

Does humanism need a Stonewall moment?

It sure would lend some authenticity.

I'm suggesting an alteration in how people view the world (and themselves). I'm not suggesting that we should go out and riot. If humanism had been widespread 41 years ago, Stonewall wouldn't have been necessary.

You can say this but it means little. Just about every ideology claims that if people held its attitudes, problems we're familiar with would never have arisen.

I'm talking about the here and now, not the distant past.

Distant past? Must be within the lifetime of at least some mature students...

Unless we suggest to politicians that the best way for them to judge how to govern is to look at how Britain looked in 1969 rather than how it looks now. The fight for the rights of women, non-whites and LGBT has strengthened the accessibility of widespread humanism. It has made it more acceptable to forget the things that make us different to one another.

No no no no no no no no We need more awareness, not some privileged groups trying to bury history and say we're all friends now.

Not one of you has addressed that point, with anything that could be called merit. Tell me why this isn't true:
"I'm the same as you" > "I'm different to you"

Whats there to address? When has it worked?

Oh, its very utopian and all, but its usually been the privileged groups creating and maintaining the division so to their experience its manifestly untrue that an unprivileged group is the same as them.

Its a reasonably sound basis for maintaining currently held rights I'm sure. I dunno, perhaps the term equal rather than same would be more useful here.

And yes, Jollytiddlywink, I hold that position when it comes to every avenue of fighting inequality. If the fight was made with one voice, rather than many, it would be a very loud and convincing voice. And that simple point seems to be lost on some of you... that I'm not advocating that these fights cease. They should very much continue - as a united voice from the perspective of humanism.

Say it humanist, say you are anti-LGBT rights and anti-minority rights in the same sense you are anti-feminist.

You can lay false-trails about privilege all you like, but it is tangential (to the extreme) to what I'm proposing. If you can't see that then I have no option but to assume that you're not playing with a full deck of cards. (Diplomacy Monkey intervened, there).

Ah, its the "agree with me or u dum" gambit once more. Will it be more successful this time around?

Honestly, the descriptions of feminism you give fit an objectionable, tiny corner of "feminism", which the vast majority of other feminists range from being uncomfortable with to denying that it has anything remotely to do with feminism at all. "Women are best!"or "women should be in charge!" -type things are, emphatically, Not feminism. (They're part of a small number of folk's version of feminism, but it's not what feminism Is.) Apart from the extremists' corner, feminists are extremely pissed off at the whole factors-from-birth thing mattering. It's called "feminism" not because it's the "yay women" movement, but because when it started, women were severely disadvantaged compared to men, so to consider issues relating to gender without that weighting, women's views and experiences have to deliberately be given time and space in order to be heard...I'm sorry you've had bad experiences with people who claimed to be, or you thought were, feminists. I can only say, the feminism you describe is not representative; not even close.

I've seen this exact same argument (with the necessary word changes) when Christians have seperated themselves from the actions of Christian extremists - whether it was the Spanish Inquisition (nobody expected that), the burning of witches or Pro-Life nutters who kill abortion clinicians. They're not actually Christians. Christianity isn't about that. Christianity is about my version of Christianity. The defence (there and here) is the No True Scot defence.

So humanism can be what humanists make it but if bad feminists exist, all feminists must be bad.

I've had several female friends. None of them were feminists. They weren't masochists revelling in subservience to men. They were self-determining, free-willed individuals who expected nothing less from life than if they were male. But they weren't feminists.

Or they were but if you're the type to say you're anti-feminist on a first date, they probably know you well enough not to engage you on the topic lest you call them fuckwits.

Well, in any case, they certainly benefited from the efforts of past feminists.

(did anyone see how the acquaintances were upgraded to friends in just a few paragraphs?)

I didn't ask them why... but, given this conversation, I'm wishing that I had. Regardless of their reasons, they didn't identify with the belief system. If feminism is so friendly, cuddly and inclusive to women (and men) why does it remain a fringe belief system?

ANECDOTES!

Feminism is most certainly a fringe thing in, like, probably most continents today or the 19th century anywhere, but I doubt the women you know are a sufficiently representative sample to make statements about its prevalence today in the anglosphere.

Feminism isn't just to benefit women. It's to benefit everyone, including men

It doesn't fight for male rights, does it? The fight is a much smaller one, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be happening. If you think otherwise, or you think that - because we're barely escaping from millennia of patriarchy - that male rights can be ignored... then you're sexist. Humanism doesn't make that distinction. Feminism does.

G13 made some good posts about this a page back that the mods took bloody ages to let through.

Oh my poor oppressed Redcelt, what male rights of yours are being ignored?

My beliefs are the same as the parts of feminism that don't include the circumvention of men.

Which parts of the feminist monolith you were NTSing earlier are these now?

Providing videos (/wave QueerCommunist) of the inequalities faced by women is a case of preaching to the choir. I wish every woman had the exact same opportunities in life as every man. The weak of mind can take my anti-feminism and assume that I'm against the fight for women's rights.

Or that you're ignorant, doomed to be ineffective and too focused on your own already substantial rights and privilege.

(the inclusive humanist is also calling us stupid again)

Because thinking inside the box is so much easier than stepping out of the box.

So from being a fringe ideology, feminism is now thinking inside the box and a form of humanism dedicated to preserving male privilege is a radical breakthrough?

Is my position clearer now, or should I go fetch the knitting needle?

Heh, i know this one, i know how this goes, wait, wait, its coming... heh, 'k gottit. Maybe... maybe... heheheh YOU ALREADY DID

YEAH!!!!!!!!

*raises hand in anticipation of that slap and a sting that indicates the exchange of "much props" between the palms of bros of all genders*

[RedCelt69]

<fwat>

[RedCelt69]

I didn't see any humanists getting arrested in Moscow yesterday in the cause of gay rights.

How do you know?

There were no humanists marching in Britain in the early part of the last century for women's suffrage.

How do you know?

In other words, feminists, LGBT rights campaigners and civil rights activists (all those people you refuse to be associated with) have been doing humanists a favour, and NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND!

Read what I wrote again. Please. Your lack of cerebral capacity is the only reason that I'm irate (not spiteful). I'm not disassociating myself with any of them - I'm embracing... fuck it. I'm not typing it out again. This is like teaching a kitten to play the piano.

And, if humanism is what humanists make of it, why is feminism what you insist it is, and not what feminists make of it? I imagine that G13 would identify as a feminist, but you've rubbished the definition of feminism that G13 offered, and insisted on using your own.

I didn't... and I didn't. But hell, why use facts in any of this.

It doesn't fight for male rights, does it?

THAT is what we're on about when we talk of privilege.

That I recognise that a group (that I'm part of) has rights? Wait there, a minute...

<repeatedly stabs a knitting needle up his nostril>

Hey... I'd carry on replying, but I've just had a sudden appreciation for So You Think You Can Dance on iPlayer...

And isn't the Conservative Party a wonderful thing?

Toodlepip.

[Senethro]

Well thats that I guess. The privileged group member has said goodbye, we are all dismissed and should clean up this thread.

[RedCelt69]

<fwat>