Why I am a Lovist – an Answer to a Reader

A reader’s comment: “I consider today’s radical feminists, not true feminists. Misandry pretending to be feminists. I still consider myself a feminist. I am for equality. I do not like for the misandry to take over what feminism meant, I can’t stand these fake feminists that tear at men and women alike. And this radical ideology spreads as if it is facts. I don’t know if I will change what I call myself in the future, but I am for equality.”

Answer: I understand your point of view. I would just note that social media is a powerful tool in the hands of extremists, and extremist feminism used it phenomenally well to convert all of feminism into the most extremist tone, that up until 5 years ago was no more than a few hundreds to thousands people in any given country. For 3-4 years now, even feminists in governmental organizations are extremely radical.

The questions I ask myself, and that I would suggest you ask yourself as well, is first whether there is any chance today to reverse this and for feminists with a humanist universalist premise to reclaim feminism, and secondly, whether the radicalization was inevitable and had to occur at some point, due to the fundamental premise of separatism (separatism is the division of humanity into “us” and “them” and it always, at some point, becomes a supremacist view of “us” and a demonizing view of “them” – it’s human nature).

As a humanist who up until five years ago (when the radicals took over feminism), regarded feminism as a natural part of humanism, I had to ask myself these two questions: can a version of feminism that regards humanism as the overarching concept of equality, really face the millions of radicalized women and gain power? And, even if it would, can a theory whose premise is separatism really refrain from eventually becoming nationalism – the division of humanity to “us” and “them”?

I followed in 2018 the attempts of feminists who at least seemed to have a humanist perspective, to take back feminism. They were run over by the incited mob, few went underground, most gave up and joined the nationalist parade, that is, the sex-nationalism that feminism became. So the attempt to make feminism what you wanted it to be, has already been tried, with every means possible, and failed.

I concluded from this that if the humanity of both sexes is to continue being the premise of modern society and love between the two sexes continue to exist (and love is the most fundamental human need in my view), then feminism needs to be replaced. There seems to be no way to de-radicalize the millions incited by social media, and even if there was, it seems inevitable that this would be very temporary and feminism will again quickly become anti-humanist sex-nationalism, because of the basic premise of separatism (again “us” and “them” will form, again the dogmatic idea of “us” are better, and “them” are the source of all human suffering, will ensue). Here I invited women to join humanism, but I also propose a more specific concept as a replacement for feminism – “a shared philosophy of equality for both sexes”, which I dubbed Lovism. Maybe you are a lovist? (so a feminist would be someone concerned with women only, an MRA with men only, and a lovist would be someone saying, “I am not supporting only one sex, but both. The rights of both are important to me – I’m not a feminist and not an MRA – I’m a lovist. I’m for both”).

Continue reading in Lovism: A Humanist Alternative to Feminism, available on amazon.

Free preview

Support the author on Pateron at www.patreon.com/henryblair

Photo by Fabiola Peñalba on Unsplash

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s