FAQ: Why "feminism" and not just "humanism"? Or "equalism"? Isn’t saying you’re a feminist exclusionary?
This question implies that one must be either one or the other. People and philosophies are far more complicated than that. A feminist may also be both a humanist and an equalist.
There’s no law that says only one box can be ticked here, and it’s hugely important not to get sucked into thinking that one choice excludes the others. A major reason that most populist debate in the corporate media (and in online forums too) is a pitiful sham is that way too many questions are argued on an either/or basis, instead of acknowledging the probability of a both/and stance. The either/or method of framing a debate is technically referred to as a “false dilemma” [more], and is one example of a logical fallacy.
As to why feminism requires a distinct agenda within the equalist movements? The special and distinct problem of misogyny both oppressing and directly harming women, pure and simple. Unless misogyny is directly addressed and acted against, general equalist activism will not be enough. [FAQs: Does feminism matter? and Isn't feminism just "victim politics"?]
Related Reading:
Introductory:
- Andrea Rubenstein (Official Shrub.com Blog): Why “feminism”?
- Colleen Wainwright (Communicatrix): ¡Feminista!
- Suzanne Reisman (BlogHer) Feminism and Humanism and Progressivism – Oh My!
Clarifying Concepts:
- More on Either/Or and Feminisms:
We’re not either/or thinkers here, but both/and thinkers. I am neither a liberal feminist who supports only attacking power by going after its underpinning through the courts and through legislation nor a radical feminist who wants to address how oppression is lived out in the day-to-day. I’m both. Without focusing on how sexism and heterosexism permeates our very existence, attacks our very way of thinking and our daily existence, it’s far, far easier for people to not care because it’s someone else’s problem. But, as I state firmly in this post, it everyone’s problem.
[Amanda Marcotte, in comments to a Blog Against Heteronormativity post at Pandagon] - Lauren (Faux Real Tho): On Feminism and Attractiveness
tigtog
tekanji
shakesville
Updated the Introductory section with a link.
Another problem I have with non-feminists wondering why we don’t call ourselves “humanist” is that although “humanist” has several meanings, I don’t want to associate myself with those which imply that human beings are sacred, or superior to animals.
the person who asked the question ‘threw around’ the word humanism, not humanist, and the wikipedia entry on humanism defines it clearly related to what the question was about. one’s audience understood what was meant perfectly well.
There is actually a clear distinction made by Wikipedia between the life stance Humanism and the ethical stance humanism. So which one do you mean and understand?
Equality is a concept which is used very selectively in some circles. Any legal measure which aims to rectify institutional racism/sexism/ageism/[insert 'ism' here] through affirmative action is derided as being unequal treatment, in violation of the ‘one rule for all’ principle. The same complaint is levelled against any group, such as feminism, which has the goal of promoting the position of one particular (disadvantaged) group within society.
In academic discussions a distinction is drawn between formal equality and substantive equality. Formal equality is the kind of surface-level equality which is achieved when the law treats all individuals the same, without reference to their sex, race or age. This kind of equality leaves many ‘equalists’ happy, but ignores the long history of discrimination against certain groups in society which leaves them in a disadvantaged position with no chance of carrying out their lives on an ‘equal playing field’.
Formal equality, on the other hand, is a more proactive concept of equality which recognises that sometimes certain groups must be treated differently in order to be truly equal. On this approach, historical grievances must be ackowledged and rectified, and a special effort must be made to return these groups to an acceptable position in society. This approach is often accused of being ‘unfair’, ‘discriminatory’, ‘racist’ or ’sexist’.
I once heard a friend of mine boil down the distinction between formal and substantive equality as the difference between equality and fairness. I think this is a good way of looking at it.