The Myth of the Angry Feminist

[AndyFromMonday]

Feminism IS bad for equality. Instead of claiming equal rights for both sexes they're advocating rights for just one sex. If feminists truly desired equality then they'd unite with masculism and create a movement that supported equal rights for both sexes. The same applies to masculism.

The battle of the sexes will not be over until both man and woman accept their differences.

 

[Trolldor]

Feminism is repulsive because feminists are ego-centric narcassists concerned only with their own well-being.

I'm tired of smug, first-world tarts harping on about their pay gap when women in the third world are regularly raped and beaten, used as sex slaves, trafficked. Treated as live stock. Forced to have circumcisions because of some pathetic religious ideology. They completely ignore the absence of identity, liberty and freedom something like the Burqa inflicts on women.
Feminists don't give a shit about women's rights.
Just like the original women's rights movement asking for female sufferage - it was sufferage for middle class, educated women. Not women as a gender.

 

[BlackMageBob]

Too few women in certain professions? Lets lower the standards and force a certain arbitrary amount of women to be employed!

This argument is hardly "casual sexism" as it makes no claim that women are inherently less able,

Actually that's exactly what he was saying. to have women in certain profession he says they have to lower the standards which directly implies that they are less able. Oh and women are disbarred from danagerous activities in the military not becuase they aren't capable becuase they aren't allowed to. If they were perhaps they could be just as capable as men.

Gotta step in here. Lets look at the physical requirements for women in the military.

http://www.navy-prt.com/femalestandard/17-19.html

Now lets try for the men.

http://www.navy-prt.com/malestandard/17-19.html

Note, this is just the 17-19 bracket. The scale drops slightly every three advancing years of age. Also note, this is just the Navy. The USA and USMC have higher reqs. In any case, look far to the right on the male side. The people who wind in the SEALS, Dive programs, SWCC, etc. make that shit look easy. How many women do you think can manage that? Shit, how many women can barely make 20 pushups at half the weight of their male counterparts?

Women are not in special warfare groups because even those capable of passing these standards can't handle the additional stress of 50-60lbs of gear and armor, and then still make those numbers.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Too few women in certain professions? Lets lower the standards and force a certain arbitrary amount of women to be employed!

This argument is hardly "casual sexism" as it makes no claim that women are inherently less able,

Actually that's exactly what he was saying. to have women in certain profession he says they have to lower the standards which directly implies that they are less able. Oh and women are disbarred from danagerous activities in the military not becuase they aren't capable becuase they aren't allowed to. If they were perhaps they could be just as capable as men.

Gotta step in here. Lets look at the physical requirements for women in the military.

http://www.navy-prt.com/femalestandard/17-19.html

Now lets try for the men.

http://www.navy-prt.com/malestandard/17-19.html

Note, this is just the 17-19 bracket. The scale drops slightly every three advancing years of age. Also note, this is just the Navy. The USA and USMC have higher reqs. In any case, look far to the right on the male side. The people who wind in the SEALS, Dive programs, SWCC, etc. make that shit look easy. How many women do you think can manage that? Shit, how many women can barely make 20 pushups at half the weight of their male counterparts?

Women are not in special warfare groups because even those capable of passing these standards can't handle the additional stress of 50-60lbs of gear and armor, and then still make those numbers.

So if they can't pass the test then why is there a rule to keep them out? Surely they should be able to try to pass the tests at least? My point was if they COULD pass those tests then they still wouldnt be allowed to do the job because of sexism. A woman passed all of the SAS tests on tv with no special rules for her. Exceptional yes, but aren't people in that field supposed to be?

Oh and those standards are minumum requirements yes? It only proves that they can do the same or more than that.

 

[kurupt87]

That is precisely what you are doing. Who are you to decide whether someone who decides to be a housewife or a househusband is a victim or not? Unless that was your point, I'm not sure.

Well, I'm kind of not. I did say I was playing devil's advocate. I'm just saying that the logic of choice as the ultimate moral get-out clause is kind of flawed (albeit very symptomatic of the liberal/individualistic position). It assumes that choices are taken in a vacuum where they can be freed from forms of expectation, including sexed/gendered expectation.

Well, blimey. You're an authoritarian? We won't be finding much common ground then, will we?

As for your dismission of choice through the argument of decisions made in vacuum, I call bollocks. Choice is a decision based on available information; that information can be factual or emotional in basis. Nobody will ever have all the available information for any choice, ever; even one as simple as blue tie or red has massive possible consequences. To state choices not made in vacuum (the vacuum being one where all knowledge is present or all unforseen consequences are absent) are irrelevant is to say all choices are irrelevant.

If that is the argument you're going for then ok, but why then should I treat your argument with any respect? Are your opinions and beliefs not merely choices based on information you've been given? Or are you arguing that you are objectively correct? If that last is the case I'm going to permit myself the indulgence of laughing at you.

My point boils down to the fact that you cannot dictate right and wrong to anyone but yourself and, that choice is the ultimate expression of the self. I am a person, not a tool. I'm Human, not Qun'ari.

I don't honestly care whether the housewife is more or less of a victim than the husband who works a job he hates every day (and that's just my family). I'm interested in why that happens, how people absorb and maintain the expectations of certain types of behaviour based on what it's meant to say about what they have between their legs.

You're angry that people have to do things that they'd rather not? Life is not fair, post-scarcity society aside it never will be. This is an argument of the have-nots against the haves; why do the poor have to work while the rich get to play?

There's are deeper (and shallower) levels to privilege than just who gets 'valued' more. It includes things like who is listened to more in a social arena, who is assumed to have more sexual agency, who finds it materially easiest to leave an abusive marriage (for example). It's not really acceptable in feminist writing to keep bleating about victims and aggressors as a universal which is not affected by other things, but it would also not be acceptable to ignore the widespread structural elements of privilege simply because they aren't universal.

Who's listened to within a social arena depends entirely upon the social arena (ie. the why/how of it) and, if a small one, the individuals that make it up.

As for sexual agency (google is my friend), I think this boils down to mean dominant vs submissive? Well, as useless as anecdotal evidence is, in my experience there are plenty of women that are on the prowl looking for submissive men. Shit tonnes in fact, so many that I haven't got laid in ages.

As for leaving an abusive marriage, I know very little. Common sense tells me that an abused man would have a harder time leaving than a woman, male society's typical response would be to "man up" whereas the woman would recieve support if she spoke out. Neither has it easy though, the personality that submits to forced abuse is inherently apologetic.

I will concede though that with the gender roles (not gender, I resent that Americanisation of a Scientific term) there are those that are judged to be worthwhile and those that are not; most of the typically male ones are worthwhile and the female ones aren't. There you have a very valid point.

Considering the word (as a reference to the social elements of sexed behaviours) dates to before America was founded and was popularized by a Frenchwoman, I'm not sure you're really justified in calling it an Americanization. What do you mean by 'scientific', because it's certainly an academic term in everyday use across a range of fields and backed up by considerable observation and empirical study - I really don't see what you're getting at there.

I came to the word gender through Biology where it is a synonym for sex, that is all. (De-!)Evolution of language happens but I don't have to like it.

Do we go about fixing that by removing gender roles until we are left with just roles? Or do we go about showing the worth of the previously scorned and derided attributes? You seem to erring toward the first, I'd much prefer the second.

Personally, and this is where I'm not speaking for all modern feminists because the outcome is where things tend to differ (hence why I say feminism is a set of techniques, not a preset objective) I don't think there is a simple fix. We don't live in age where universal social engineering on that scale is possible.

I agree with that so strongly that any other dis/agreements we have are but the dust beneath our shoes compared to the Great Pyramids of Egypt.

What I think is important is putting the ideas into social vocabulary.

That said, if it comes down to a choice, I'd choose the former. For one the 'equal but different' approach assumes a heterosexuality which I, for one, don't have. For those of us who have partners of the same sex, your approach still leads to assumption that one of those partners has to break with socially assigned gender in order to perform the roles which need to be done. Sure, there can be a perverse joy in that, but expecting it as standard is frighteningly heteronormative.

The joy of being an individual is bad?

Anyway, just how stereotypically feminine are you? That need to please all and be accepted by all is the gender role that causes you the most trouble, I think. There will always be people who disagree with you, always. There will always be people who will tell you to your face that what you do is wrong, always. If either turn out to stop being true then we are no longer people but drones and life would be uninterruptibly dull.

You also assume that cooperative coupledom (very relevant to me and my research) is necessary. Heck, a lot of heterosexuals aren't living in nuclear families any more. The existence of gender roles still assumes the need for a binary partnership with one partner to fill each role. Personally, I think 'whatever works' is a fairer mode of organization for those people than 'masculine'/'feminine'.

If I implied that then I erred badly, I haven't touched on this but I guess it's an understandable assumption for you to make. My whole philophosy is pro choice.

If you want to have a harem, fine. You want to be part of a harem, also fine. You want to be part of a relationship with three or more partners, go crazy. As long as everyone involved has chosen to be a part of it then they have every right to do whatever the hell they want to.

As for your point about dom/sub again, that's an unpopular opinion that rests squarely on feminism's shoulders. What I mean is; I think I agree with you that a relationship needs people to fill those roles but, that it is an unpopular opinion. The woman alpha sub is a victim that should be pitied, the male alpha dom is a bastard to be condemned. Notice the inclusion of sex there; a female alpha dom is laudable and the same for a male alpha sub.

In my opinion, as long as they've all chosen to indulge in what they are then none of them are any better or worse than any of the others.

What he's saying is that you do nothing to help him, ergo why should he do something to help you? The you being feminism and the him being non women. Admirable it is not but it is a perfectly reasonable response. As he said earlier, he's merely reciprocating indifference. And because indifference is shown to other issues that may or may not be more serious than those that feminists deal with respect is lost.

To repeat myself again.

'Fem' =/= women.

My research, and the research of many feminists, is intimately concerned with men. Feminist academics have devoted their entire careers to the study of masculinity. Let me get this straight one more time, men are gendered they do not pop out of the womb as fully formed little men. They are shaped in relation to gendered concepts, and if you don't think 'femininity' or 'effeminacy' or 'feminization' or any of the other 'fem' words are important to understanding how men come to understand themselves as men, I think that's a bit short sighted.

This has been one of the key shifts in trajectory in modern feminism. Wheras it used to be that 'patriachy' meant 'oppression of women by men', nowadays the word is seldom encountered. What is much more relevant is the way in which men are able to access male privilege insofar (and only insofar) as they 'perform' masculinity. That doesn't make that privilege not there, but there are power distributions between men based on 'fem' concepts which are of intimate concern to feminists.

To repeat myself again, spectacularly appropriately:

Liberal Feminism has to rebrand itself, the name is too tinged with the man hating loon to be taken seriously without having to effortfully preface itself first.

An umbrella humanist organisation with the serious backing that feminism gets could do some widespread good.

Last I checked, 'humanist' academic departments (which is to say almost all of them) get massive funding. Most NGOs function on humanist principles. Are you seriously this averse to the idea that gender blindness might not be a good thing?

You're not promoting some radical idea here, you're repeating an ideology which is hundreds of years old and from which women have been consistently excluded.

And yet how often are Humanists put before us? How often is feminism?

Feminism is a powerful brand that almost instantly gets the support of half the western world (and the almost instant wariness of the other) and is regularly in the media. Humanism is a more nebulous concept that the majority are completely unaware of, that does more widespread good and has a name free of any possible sexist connotations.

I'm not saying to stop the good work that feminism does, or to completely dissolve and become part of humanism. No; what I'm saying, in simple gamer terms, would be for EA (Humanism) to buy BioWare (Feminism) but for them to retain their own internal cohesion.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Well, blimey. You're an authoritarian? We won't be finding much common ground then, will we?

Umm..

To state choices not made in vacuum (the vacuum being one where all knowledge is present or all unforseen consequences are absent) are irrelevant is to say all choices are irrelevant.

Go back to my post. Look for the word 'irrelevant'.

My point is that liberals have tended to take choice as symptomatic of the ultimate moral good, while systematically denying the right of choice to those whose lifestyles don't fit the liberal model (so a Western woman can always legitimately choose to get married, but an Islamic woman has to proove that she can legitimate choose to wear the veil, for example). It's an offensive double standard which is actually not based on choice at all, but on a highly universalized idea of what human beings would want.

Seriously, dig into the logic which underpins your valuing of choice and you'll find that choice is always socially limited. It's a given liberal assumption that noone can choose something which is 'harmful' for them, the definition of harm already having been set by a particular group of people (generally white men). So why is marriage an acceptable choice for you, given the widespread nature of marital abuse, wheras injecting heroin into your eyelids or immolating yourself on your husband's funeral pyre is not?

You're angry that people have to do things that they'd rather not? Life is not fair, post-scarcity society aside it never will be. This is an argument of the have-nots against the haves; why do the poor have to work while the rich get to play?

Way to miss the point.

Who's listened to within a social arena depends entirely upon the social arena (ie. the why/how of it) and, if a small one, the individuals that make it up.

If you honestly think that a daycare circle has as much social influence as the elected government, then I give up on this discussion.

Again, the fact that these things are generalizations does make those generalizations completely irrelevant, because they are overwhelmingly accurate. It means you can't assume a simple, one size fits all solution, but what you're doing is refusing to even consider that there's a problem requiring a solution, with the most tired argument of 'that's just how it is'.

I came to the word gender through Biology where it is a synonym for sex, that is all. (De-!)Evolution of language happens but I don't have to like it.

Well.. if you want to ignore 60 years of intellectual history (except the bits stemming from your discipline), good luck in biology. You'll fit right in.

Anyway, just how stereotypically feminine are you?

I'll take that as a compliment under the circumstances, particularly if the alternative is a cynical dependence on an unequal and let's not forget unchosen mode of social organization to derive some sense of self.

People can be judged on what they do, yes, but that's not what we're talking about. What you're talking about is having the approximate shape of someone's genitals determine their entire life expectations. I happen to think that's a bit odd.

The woman alpha sub is a victim that should be pitied, the male alpha dom is a bastard to be condemned. Notice the inclusion of sex there; a female alpha dom is laudable and the same for a male alpha sub.

Err.. no..

Since we're getting into D/s terminology, I know a great deal of explicitly dominant men who I think are great and whom I would trust with any woman (or man) you could name. Likewise, I know a lot of female submissives who are intelligent, high powered and pretty aware of the gendering inherent in their position. What I have a problem with is the unconscious assumption of those roles by the vast majority of the human race and the constant repetition of those roles in media and society as a whole.

Again, you're taking choice as the ultimate moral issue while ignoring the difficulties and limitations of making certain choices. It's all okay as long as everyone consents, so long as you can't see any harm.

And yet how often are Humanists put before us? How often is feminism?

If the answer to that question isn't obvious, I'm not sure you're quite understanding what a humanist is.

A humanist is a person who takes the human subject as central to understanding, and who views all humans as possessing some kind of commonality which allows you to call them 'human'. Does that principle sound familiar?

Maybe the reason you don't see it is because it doesn't even need to be articulated. It's been the basis of scholarship and social organization for so long that it's pretty much an unwritten assumption.

The problem is that humanism has consistently failed to incorporate on an equal footing those 'human' experiences which do not match those of socially dominant white men, because to a certain extent the term 'human' is biased to refer to socially dominant white men as the default. Feminism's deliberate use of the marked category is really no less inclusive when you dig into it.

Women exist in relation to the gendered concept of human.
Men exist in relation to the gendered concept of 'fem'.

If evidence had consistently shown that 'humanists' were able to extend genuine centrality to female subjects, we would never have needed the term feminism, but why would I want to share a department and a platform with people who consistently write about male experiences as if they're universal?

 

[DaJoW]

The problem is that there are those who use the word feminism to mean something closer to female superiority, and they're usually loud and get a lot of media attention. We have a party called Feministic Initiative here, with such well-founded political goals as replacing 50% of the pedestrian crossing signs so that 50% show a man and 50% show a woman, changing the name-law so that there are no longer such things as boynames and girlnames, forcing corporations to make at least 50% of their boards female (though more than 50% was encouraged) and its former leader once proposed a "mantax", a special tax on all males due to the violence, destruction, suffering and pollution men are responsible for. Naturally, they got a lot of attention.

A few years back a friend of mine read a fictional book in which women had been the dominant gender in all history, and it was a utopia - for everyone but men of course, who weren't allowed to vote. This was presented as a reasonable and good thing and something to strive for in the real world. It was also written in what the author called "feminist language" - that is every word containing the word "man" had it changed to "woman". Womankind, womanage, womanakin etc. Also a problem.

"Real" feminism as I usually think about it - gender equality - is an excellent thing, but the term does tend to get used by people with more extreme views.

 

[kurupt87]

I thought this had died, I'll do my best to revive my train of thought.

Well, blimey. You're an authoritarian? We won't be finding much common ground then, will we?

Umm..

If I remember correctly I read something that you put "as imposing your choice -"it was something about societal makeup I think"- upon people whether they liked it or not". I've had a quick rescan and can't find the part I mean, so as I can't back that up I apologise for the assertion.

To state choices not made in vacuum (the vacuum being one where all knowledge is present or all unforseen consequences are absent) are irrelevant is to say all choices are irrelevant.

Go back to my post. Look for the word 'irrelevant'.

You were dismissive, you didn't claim complete irrelevancy though. Bad choice of adjective on my part.

My point is that liberals have tended to take choice as symptomatic of the ultimate moral good, while systematically denying the right of choice to those whose lifestyles don't fit the liberal model (so a Western woman can always legitimately choose to get married, but an Islamic woman has to proove that she can legitimate choose to wear the veil, for example). It's an offensive double standard which is actually not based on choice at all, but on a highly universalized idea of what human beings would want.

Seriously, dig into the logic which underpins your valuing of choice and you'll find that choice is always socially limited. It's a given liberal assumption that noone can choose something which is 'harmful' for them, the definition of harm already having been set by a particular group of people (generally white men). So why is marriage an acceptable choice for you, given the widespread nature of marital abuse, wheras injecting heroin into your eyelids or immolating yourself on your husband's funeral pyre is not?

Now you're asserting I'm an Authoritarian! You're equating me, as an individual, with our society and government.

Yes, our values and indirectly our choices are decided upon by the society we find ourselves in. We can judge other cultures and the things they get up to but not impose (I was going to state exceptions, gave up, too complicated and long winded). If someone chooses to join our society they will be integrated, if they weren't they'd cause themselves and others harm, but our society will itself adapt some small way to having someone with different views in it. They have also made a subconscious acknowledgement that they view our society as better than their own; they've chosen to leave their own and join ours afterall.

Marriage? Again, assumptions can bite you in the arse. I'm not a big fan of marriage, never really seen the point other than a way in which Organised Religion has control over our lives or, a more modern view, some sort of arbitrary life goal for women. Obviously there are tax reasons but they're not exactly winning me over.

Heroin in the eyelids? Well I can't say I know what that would do, besides numb the bejeesus out of them. Again, your assumptions come back at you; I don't support the illegalisation of drugs. Given the power and trust (and several minutes thought on summing up my feelings) I would implement a personalised ration system for, and intensive education about, recreational drugs; bar weed of course. You can smoke that till your eyeballs fall out. I wouldn't recommend doing what you suggested but I wouldn't stop someone doing it.

Self immolation? Again, based on a couple of minutes thought I'd suggest a system where this person asks for permission to do this and is submitted to a series of tests to ensure there is no way to help this person, or indeed if they even need help, before giving permission to proceed. But, ultimately it's up to them. Again, obviously not something I would recommend.

You're angry that people have to do things that they'd rather not? Life is not fair, post-scarcity society aside it never will be. This is an argument of the have-nots against the haves; why do the poor have to work while the rich get to play?

Way to miss the point.

So your point was that you take a cold, clinical interest in this field? The fact that you are a lesbian in a world where that is not the norm does not colour your interest at all?

Who's listened to within a social arena depends entirely upon the social arena (ie. the why/how of it) and, if a small one, the individuals that make it up.

If you honestly think that a daycare circle has as much social influence as the elected government, then I give up on this discussion.

Again, the fact that these things are generalizations does make those generalizations completely irrelevant, because they are overwhelmingly accurate. It means you can't assume a simple, one size fits all solution, but what you're doing is refusing to even consider that there's a problem requiring a solution, with the most tired argument of 'that's just how it is'.

Society is the way it is. To think societal change happens fast (bar revolutions) is wishful thinking, I know you aren't suggesting that but it's an important point I think.

We just currently have the society of those at least one generation above us being the one that is in charge and imposed by government. Once our generation is in charge things will be different, every generation makes changes. I think I'm right in saying that there are far more female students graduating with degrees than males right now, once this wave is in charge things will be even more different.

I also wouldn't be so quick to discard the opinion of a Knitting Circle. At least in the groups I've hung around with men are more interested in discussing things that interest them; they leave important matters private and come to their own conclusions. Women are more likely to talk to each other about things and make judgements upon them as a group, albeit one with one woman who steers the rest. They then share these views with their partners and friends, influencing the view of people not even there to start with. Women are viewed as the moral arbiters of society, rightly or wrongly, because of their pervasive gossip.

I came to the word gender through Biology where it is a synonym for sex, that is all. (De-!)Evolution of language happens but I don't have to like it.

Well.. if you want to ignore 60 years of intellectual history (except the bits stemming from your discipline), good luck in biology. You'll fit right in.

Ha, I guess that wasn't funny then. In that case, I'll stick to salient points and avoid jokes. I'm also not over 60...

Also, was that some sort of dismission of the entire field of Biology? What did they do to piss you off?

Anyway, just how stereotypically feminine are you?

I'll take that as a compliment under the circumstances, particularly if the alternative is a cynical dependence on an unequal and let's not forget unchosen mode of social organization to derive some sense of self.

People can be judged on what they do, yes, but that's not what we're talking about. What you're talking about is having the approximate shape of someone's genitals determine their entire life expectations. I happen to think that's a bit odd.

It wasn't an insult either, don't worry.

No, what I was talking about was you not being happy with the cards you've been dealt and being angry at society because of that. (I was going to delete that sentence and rewrite it, it suggests that you aren't happy with who you are, something I believe the opposite of concerning yourself and didn't mean to imply. I will let it stand though, and this correction, to give you a view of how I see you.) No, I was talking about how you resent the world for arbitrarily deciding you're different and giving you punishment because of it. That seems to be the reason you are interested in this entire topic to begin with. You seem to be on a quest to legitamise yourself to the world by attacking it and wanting to change it.

That is a perfectly valid reason, a personal reason to get into something is a wonderful motivator, and I quite agree with you that the world does harshly judge those like yourself for completely arbitrary reasons, resulting in harm and hurt to many people. What I disagree with is imposing change; you are the one who wants to change the world. Do not the racists and the homophobes and the sexists have a right to their own views? Even as wrong and bigotted as we see them.

This is just an argument over nothing though, you could no sooner impose change or punish these people (even though I don't think you would) than you could fly to the moon and back. Yes, our society needs edging toward a more accepting viewpoint. (This already exists to a certain point in my country by the way, Britain has been ruled by homosexuals for hundreds of years (Disclaimer: mild joke). Coming out is still hard though, so I'm told, so we still have a way to go. Being gay is nothing like as bad as it seems to be in America for middle or upper class Britain. Even lower class Britain is surprisingly accepting in my experience.).

Back to my point, which I will now do you the decency of explaining. I question your motives for change, they are not purely for improving society but changing it so that you fit it better; how is that different to what a racist or homophobe would do? Point: you're not objective enough.

That is extremely personal, and pretty judgemental, and I won't be surprised if you tell me to fuck right off; I probably would in your shoes. I am being honest about my thoughts, so take that as you will.

The woman alpha sub is a victim that should be pitied, the male alpha dom is a bastard to be condemned. Notice the inclusion of sex there; a female alpha dom is laudable and the same for a male alpha sub.

Err.. no..

Since we're getting into D/s terminology, I know a great deal of explicitly dominant men who I think are great and whom I would trust with any woman (or man) you could name. Likewise, I know a lot of female submissives who are intelligent, high powered and pretty aware of the gendering inherent in their position. What I have a problem with is the unconscious assumption of those roles by the vast majority of the human race and the constant repetition of those roles in media and society as a whole.

Again, you're taking choice as the ultimate moral issue while ignoring the difficulties and limitations of making certain choices. It's all okay as long as everyone consents, so long as you can't see any harm.

I don't think the number of dominant women will ever exceed the number of dominant men; testosterone for one just won't allow it. Men and women are different at a biological level, enforcing roles because of this difference is wrong but ignoring that difference is stupid. Women and men are quite clearly capable of fulfilling their traditionally opposite role but it requires more effort and a more developed self.

You seem to equate ok with "the right choice" rather than a permissible one. I'm not, stop implying I am. There are consequences to being submissive and to being dominant, how far you choose to mould your personality to these traits is an individual choice that requires serious contemplation. Take me for example, socially I am submissive but sexually I'm dominant. Both of those choices have consequences, good and bad, and neither is right or wrong. Choice is the wrong word here really, these are aspects of my self that I have accepted and developed to what I am happy with.

Oh, and as a sexually dominant man I certainly feel vilified. I don't really care as people who think that can go sod themselves but that doesn't mean the feeling isn't there. This isn't within male groups obviously, this is when socialising in mixed groups or listening to the media. This is why I claimed confidently in my previous post that there are sharking women out there, they're attracted to me because I'm quiet in social situations and assume I'm of a like mind in the bedroom. Amusingly pushy, some of them.

And yet how often are Humanists put before us? How often is feminism?

If the answer to that question isn't obvious, I'm not sure you're quite understanding what a humanist is.

That could well be the case.

A humanist is a person who takes the human subject as central to understanding, and who views all humans as possessing some kind of commonality which allows you to call them 'human'. Does that principle sound familiar?

Not particularly. I fear I used the wrong word, just assuming a Humanist would be synonomous with an "Equalist", if such a word exists. Many apologies.

Maybe the reason you don't see it is because it doesn't even need to be articulated. It's been the basis of scholarship and social organization for so long that it's pretty much an unwritten assumption.

The problem is that humanism has consistently failed to incorporate on an equal footing those 'human' experiences which do not match those of socially dominant white men, because to a certain extent the term 'human' is biased to refer to socially dominant white men as the default. Feminism's deliberate use of the marked category is really no less inclusive when you dig into it.

Women exist in relation to the gendered concept of human.
Men exist in relation to the gendered concept of 'fem'.

If evidence had consistently shown that 'humanists' were able to extend genuine centrality to female subjects, we would never have needed the term feminism, but why would I want to share a department and a platform with people who consistently write about male experiences as if they're universal?

Thank you for your view on Humanism, I will bear it in mind as I embark on a quest to educate myself about it in order to not make a fool of myself in the future.