Pizza Diavola

Melissa, Shakesville: Feminism 101: Feminism and Humanism (2008/04/16): A clear and concise explanation of the problems with this attitude: “I’m not a feminist, I’m a humanist! Feminism is about women, and I’m interested in the equality of all people!”

My usual response is to snark, “Erasmus called. He wants his philosophy back.” Melissa’s much more productive response is

those arguing in favor of a “humanist” movement won’t say they’re arguing for men’s inclusion, instead citing what they perceive as the limitations of feminism/womanism—”But what about gay people or people of color or the disabled or the poor or…?” they ask, as if there is something intrinsic to feminism that precludes also fighting other biases. The truth is, if one is genuinely concerned with the betterment of women, one is necessarily concerned with fighting biases against any marginalized group, because, half (give or take) of all such groups are women.

…
Arguing for a “humanist” movement, because feminism/womanism is too limited, is necessarily predicated on viewing “women” as a group separate from “people of color” as a group separate from “LGBTQ” as a group separate from “disabled” as a group separate from “poor” as a group separate from “fat” as a group separate from… It’s a failure to respect both intersectionality and the breadth of experience among women, no less among all humans.

I would add that the need to say, “I’m a humanist, not a feminist!” is predicated on either well-intentioned ignorance about the realities of sexism and the feminist movement, or a knee-jerk fear of fighting for women’s equality. Feminism is about advocating for women’s rights, and to say, “I’m not just focused on women, I’m focused on everyone,” is no more and no less than an attempt to redirect attention to men.

Additionally, there is power in labels, power in words. We use identifiers (e.g. the AA formula “Hi, my name is ___ and I’m an alcoholic”) because they carry meaning. They tell us what a movement is about, what’s inside the tin. Feminism, derived from femina, the Latin word for woman, says upfront and boldly that it is about advocating for women. Women have been erased and silenced throughout history and one of the many aims of feminism is to fight back against that erasure. To claim, “I’m not a feminist, I’m a humanist,” rhetorically removes women from the spotlight and silences them once again, while simultaneously claiming to advocate for all people, including women. There is some hypocrisy and sloppy thinking there.

In short, if you’re genuinely focused on advocating for women, what’s the problem with claiming the label? I understand the concerns about how various branches of feminist thought have historically ignored intersectionality and I respect the choices of activists who choose to not to associate themselves with the feminist label for that reason. However, the people who go around talking about “humanism, not feminism” are not the people who have those objections to the word feminism. I am not trying to force identity of feminist on anyone who chooses not to claim it. I am, however, pointing out the logical fallacies behind the idea “I’m a humanist, not a feminist!” The people arguing for “humanism, not feminism” fail to recognize that women have intersectional identities; their whole argument is premised on the idea that you’re either a woman or you’re a person (man) of color, disabled person (man), GBTQ person (man), poor person (man), etc. As I said in the comments to Melissa’s post,

It’s amazing how easily most people forget that there are multiple aspects to identity. It’s not that you are only one thing or another, it’s that you’re both (or more), and all those aspects of identity interact to affect your lived experience.

And what’s with this monolithic idea of woman as white, heterosexual, wealthy, able-bodied, cisgendered, etc.? I feel that when the faux-humanist (Erasmus called, he wants his philosophy back!) people talk about how feminism leaves out all other groups, they’re assuming that women are only ever white/heterosexual/economically secure/able-bodied/cisgendered and so they’re not part of any other group. Way to erase WOC, disabled women, transgendered women, queer women, women who have some of those or all of those or more of those identity aspects–which is ironic because the faux-humanists claim they’re looking out for the groups ignored by second-wave feminism. Except they only mean men of color, disabled men, etc.

Ultimately, claims of “humanism” reveal a thought process that reverts toward focusing on men and erasing women once more, proving that “humanism” is not the same as feminism.

See also FF101: Why “feminism” and not just “humanism”? Or “equalism”? Isn’t saying you’re a feminist exclusionary?