Hacker News Reader

Comment by claudius | Hacker News Reader

What I never quite get…if feminism is exactly the same as humanism, why the hell invent a new word for this wonderful, 200 years-old concept?

View on HN

Because there's a crossover between feminism the philosophical worldview, which is arguably very close to humanism, and feminism the activist movement which has the rather more immediate goal of liberating women from the threat(s) of physical violence which apply to them specifically. Obviously that kind of thing requires a banner for people to rally under.

But you're right it's a pretty nebulous thing. I guess that's why people keep trying to redefine it with successive "waves."

EDIT: also feminism isn't exactly a recent thing either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette

>feminism the activist movement which has the rather more immediate goal of liberating women from the threat(s) of physical violence which apply to them specifically //

So are you saying that suffragettes, say, weren't feminists; or that they weren't activists. Your claim that feminism is primarily about protecting women from men trying to commit violence against them is bunkum.

Feminism is about promoting the rights of women.

Equality of opportunity is a finer cause IMO.

This comment, http://stronglikebool.com/post/2013/04/10/No-I-Dont-Want-a-T..., on the article is fascinating. She wants what people are railing against - the opportunity to discriminate sexually against those who are around her just because she likes it that way. Can you imagine a tech firm that had a "men only" event? To answer her question - I don't find it wrong at all just as long as she realises it's sexist. Sexual discrimination is a natural part of the human condition.

> Because there's a crossover between feminism the philosophical worldview, which is arguably very close to humanism

But not using humanism here opens the field for this radical crowd, who call themselves feminists, you usually find on Tumblr (and a few other places) and who find sexual harassment against men perfectly fine, because, hey, it’s feminism and all men are unworthy of one’s respect anyways.

The civil rights movement in the US managed to pick a word that was not so easily abused by radicals.

"not using humanism here opens the field for this radical crowd, who call themselves feminists"

Feminism is a specific application of humanism. Humanism is feminism.

Self-ascription means that anyone can call themselves a "feminist", so you'd be harping about all the women in "humanism" when they're supposed to be promoting HUMANS NOT WOMEN. You'd have something to complain about no matter what they called themselves.

I find the whole "threat of physical violence" thing objectionable, personally.

Sure, men are generally bigger than women, but culturally, men are trained to not raise a finger against women, whereas women are trained to have no such compunction.

Apocryphal, I know, but I have never, ever, ever, and never will, raise a hand or my voice to a woman, yet have been on the receiving end of domestic violence more than a few times. I'm not a small chap, at 200lbs and 6'3", but:

I've been stabbed in the leg by a stilleto (a heel, not a dagger), for accusing a girlfriend of cheating with my housemate (she was).

I was given a fractured eyesocket by another ex who pushed me down the stairs while she (and I, admittedly) was drunk, "because".

I can cite plenty of other examples of woman-on-man violence immediate to me, but shan't, as my point isn't one of "oh but women are the perpetrators", but one of "humans are the perpetrators".

In a world where practically anyone can lay their hands on an object that in any hands can become a weapon with ease, I don't think it's valid to say that "domestic violence is a result of men, and women, specifically, are its victims".

I am sure you can, but statistics are not on your side. Domestic violence is mostly done by men. I hope your choice of companions have improved since.

Statistics are derived from crime reports. Men do not report domestic violence against them by women. I went to hospital for "sitting on a shoe" and "tripping and smacking my face on a bannister".

Ergo, whatever statistics you're looking at, sample bias, sample bias, sample bias.

This article is wrong. Humanism is not feminism. Humanism is not related at all to tackling sexist discrimination (although many humanists may be feminists). Using the same word for two different movements would just be confusing.

How is humanism, the very idea that all humans should be treated equal and are of equal worth regardless of their sex, race, sexual orientation etc. not tackling sexist discrimination?

I, as a self-proclaimed humanist, find any[0] differentiation based on such a criterion not worthy of a modern society. I do however have a problem with a word/movement that I have trouble defining without resorting to sexism.

[0] Okay, there are obviously areas where sexism/racism is perfectly fine: A MD’s office, for example, or your bedroom. But those are really the only two I can think of at the moment.

child care employee? Or you'd be fine with regulation that 50% of all child care employees have to be men?

Why exactly do you think that men are worse than women at child care?

And no, ideally, I would want the law to be gender-blind and personally I couldn’t care less about the gender of the person one day taking care of my child.

However, if we want to introduce gender quota, I expect them to apply to every profession and every position from childcare to firefighter (and ideally to membership in private associations/clubs as well…hell, why not also to school/university classes?).

>Why exactly do you think that men are worse than women at >child care?

Me? I don't think so. Women do. My uncle owns a few child care centers in the North-East. He never hires male employees. Why? Because the one he did a few years back was very soon accused of pheadophilia by one of the mothers. She didn't like the way he changed diapers on her daughter. Then my uncle learned it happens all the time with the child care centers. The mothers will sue as soon as they realize a male is hired. They accuse of peadophilia hoping to get good ROI on their action. That's why you'll never see a male in a child care center in the US, my friend. Because the mothers apparently are sexist. Or the courts. Or you tell me.

>And no, ideally, I would want the law to be gender-blind and >personally I couldn’t care less about the gender of the >person one day taking care of my child.

The problem is that the most people are not you. Most people will sue. Rightfully or not.

>However, if we want to introduce gender quota, I expect them >to apply to every profession and every position from >childcare to firefighter (and ideally to membership in >private associations/clubs as well…hell, why not also to >school/university classes?).

Why to stop with gender quota there? Why not to have a gender quota in divorce rulings? 50% cases kids go to the mother, 50% cases kids go to the father? Or maybe you praise gender equality only in the workforce and not in the social life in general?

I think she meant egalitarianism, not humanism

Because you have one overarching goal (Treat all people having equal rights), and numerous different areas that need dealing with (racism, sexism, homophobia).

Feminism is simply the part that's dealing with sexism.

It's a bit unfortunate that the term for gender equality is so gender biased.

One could argue that sexism tends to be gender biased.

Certainly, but it's not completely one sided, which is why a word that is completely one sided is unfortunate. It's unfortunate because it simultaneously alienates some reasonable people who would be comfortable participating under a gender neutral term and attracts some radical people who would not be comfortable participating under a gender neutral term.

It's not completely one-sided, but I'll note that there's no reason why we need to characterize it in terms of sides. Many issues feminists rail against have implications for men's quality of life, as well. Traditional gender roles have plenty of pernicious effects on men.

That is exactly my point why a gender neutral term would be beneficial.

It's gender-specific. Raising the status of women helps men.

Because several concepts can exist at the same time. Why address problems with women when issues of race and class exist? Why better your country when people are dying elsewhere? Why focus on people dying elsewhere when people are dying right next door to your neighborhood?

Your nitpicks are unnecessary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com