feminists, civil rights activists, pro-affirmitive action...ists, fair pay activists, and whatever other people work for the advancement/equality of a specific group should just all join together under the title: HUMANISTS.
... but then we'd still need PETA.
This is why I hate feminism
Moderator: aquaphase
But what if you're a feminist that hates black people?feminists, civil rights activists, pro-affirmitive action...ists, fair pay activists, and whatever other people work for the advancement/equality of a specific group should just all join together under the title: HUMANISTS.
"There are many fish in the sea, Maria. But you're the only one I want to mount over my fireplace." ~Walter Matthau
i agree that it all comes down to respect for fellow humans, and, while humanism does subsume all the other movements, most people aren’t ready to think about things at this level of abstraction. By dividing this into sub-movements, we are able to call attention to the particulars prejudices that are taken for granted in daily practice: people need to be reminded, in a blatant way, that women still do not receive equal pay, that women and ethnic minorities are still under-represented in positions of power throughout our society, that it is not acceptable to sexually harass a woman just because she’s showing cleavage, that people with disabilities don’t need to be locked away and can participate in society like a ‘normal’ person, that poverty is not the result of laziness,… you get the idea. But some people still think these things are ok: an actual quote from my mother when talking about gender discrimination “well, its better than it used to be and these things just take a long time to change”. Yes, things are better than they used to be, and yes it will take a long time to change if we don’t continue to call attention to discrimination when we see it. Unfortunately, to just say ‘treat all humans the same’ doesn’t work – it leave a lot of unrecognized inequality still swirling around. We need people to take up the torch on behalf of all marginalized groups and work together toward the common goal of equality. We need to keep reminding our society that just because something has always been a certain way doesn’t make it right. We need to comment on the specific behaviors, values and ideals that we find objectionable. And we need do these things in every day life, remember, the personal is political. We need to chip away at these specific prejudices one by one until our society is in a place where we can say ‘everyone is created equal’ and mean it.feminists, civil rights activists, pro-affirmitive action...ists, fair pay activists, and whatever other people work for the advancement/equality of a specific group should just all join together under the title: HUMANISTS.
... but then we'd still need PETA.
[/manifesta]
"Hope is for sissies"-House
Mere "hope deserves money" 1975
Mere "hope deserves money" 1975
i agree and i support certain things like affirmitive action that go toward one speicifc group, but i still dont like the whole movement being named one thing. humanists can be divided into subgroups that have a specific focus, but it should be called gender humanists not feminists, because men are also affected by unequal distribution of power by having more burden on their shoulders, higher expectations, etc. Feminists usually talk about the unfair aspects for men too, which is why the title is now outdated and should be changed. Think: Civil Rights movement instead of Negro Rights movement. Which title has a more positive connotation to more people?
[/rambly crap]
[/rambly crap]
I myself am hell;
nobody’s here—
nobody’s here—
But it doesn't mean the same thing. And the name Feminism is not dumb unless you chose to accept the idea that "Feminism" excludes men, which it doesn't in name, only by reputation; there are actually plenty of male feminists. It's equatable to the idea that Hillary's a ball busting bitch in theory, but not so much in fact.
Feminism isn't and should not be considered a smaller part of some larger movement that you've deemed "humanisim," and actually, the term "humanist" could actually turn off more people than the term "Feminist," because it implies "Secular Humanism," which makes a lot of people stabby.
[/drunk]
Plus, I love Squeezle's term "Manifesta." I've never seen that before, funny.
Feminism isn't and should not be considered a smaller part of some larger movement that you've deemed "humanisim," and actually, the term "humanist" could actually turn off more people than the term "Feminist," because it implies "Secular Humanism," which makes a lot of people stabby.
[/drunk]
Plus, I love Squeezle's term "Manifesta." I've never seen that before, funny.
"There are many fish in the sea, Maria. But you're the only one I want to mount over my fireplace." ~Walter Matthau
I don't think it's much of a stretch to suggest that the word feminism itself reasonably comes off as exclusive of men.
I was thinking the same thing. What are the main differences between Dalya's "humanism" and Secular Humanism?the term "humanist" could actually turn off more people than the term "Feminist," because it implies "Secular Humanism," which makes a lot of people stabby.
"Mere 'I prefer my friends to stay in my computer' 1975"
my humanism which is prolly the same as kurt vonneguts humanism is probably comprable to something like buddhism. you can be a secular humanist or a religious humanist. just like you can be buddhist and another religion because they can coexist.
my definition is that all humans deserve equal opportunities to learn, gain experiences, and succeed in whatever way they define success, (note the word opportunity, not implying all people are equal in every way or want the same things) and that all humans are charged with the mission of realizing this ideal and that this mission should prevail over all other ideologies and loyalties. this goal should coincide with the goal of most religions, but i guess when it doesnt is when the problem would arise. obviously this also creates problems where nationalism and wars are concerned, etc. but anyway. its an ideal.
i dont think believing in this in any way contradicts religion. you could just as easil add "all humans deserve equal.... because god/allah/jesus/krishnah/the spaghetti monster endowed us all with the gift of life", or whatever.
my definition is that all humans deserve equal opportunities to learn, gain experiences, and succeed in whatever way they define success, (note the word opportunity, not implying all people are equal in every way or want the same things) and that all humans are charged with the mission of realizing this ideal and that this mission should prevail over all other ideologies and loyalties. this goal should coincide with the goal of most religions, but i guess when it doesnt is when the problem would arise. obviously this also creates problems where nationalism and wars are concerned, etc. but anyway. its an ideal.
i dont think believing in this in any way contradicts religion. you could just as easil add "all humans deserve equal.... because god/allah/jesus/krishnah/the spaghetti monster endowed us all with the gift of life", or whatever.
I myself am hell;
nobody’s here—
nobody’s here—
Return to “Slapdash Incongruities”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 23 guests