The Idea That All Should Be Equal Is Called Humanism. Not Feminism.

Humanism is concerned with the rights of all, feminism only with the rights of some. When protection of rights of only half of humanity is accepted as the full concept of equality, the rights of half of humanity exist nowhere.

I believe in equality, which I understand as equal rights, opportunity, cultivation and human value (and not as sameness of sexes). This is the basic perception called humanism, and I see myself as a humanist. Feminists often attempt to argue that feminism is just the belief in equality for all – that is, they attempt to say that feminism is humanism. This is a mistake, and if men and women won’t be able to realize where the mistake lies and how to point it out, none will be able to achieve well-being, because the mistake goes all the way down to the replacement of rights for all with a perspective that requires society to understand “equality” as rights to only part of humanity (that is, the following discussion is about essence, and not about words or names).

Feminism is separatism. The separatism is written into its name. Feminism is not concerned, like humanism, with the rights of all humans. If a woman abuses her husband out of cruelty, the husband’s right for safety does not concern feminists, protections that would have allowed him to realize his right for safety and not to be abused, do not concern feminists, and in fact most of them would protect the wife who committed the violence (demand her release from prison, blame the man for her violence), because feminism is not humanism, and in fact is similar to nationalist movements, with the collection of individuals called “women” replacing the collection called “nation”. Many if not most feminists even speak explicitly about “the women’s nation”. Just as the response in racist nationalist movements to a case where a person of their own nation committed a crime against someone from another nation (with whom the nationalists feel they have a political conflict), would often be to see their countryman as innocent, arguing “he’s only defending himself against the cruelty of the other nation” or “this is only a rational response to the evil of the other nation”, so will almost all feminists treat any wrongdoing by a woman to a man or a boy (sexual exploitation by a teacher, violence by a wife) with the same argumentation.

Feminists are not the least concerned with humanism – which is the aspiration for equality for all of humanity and the same rights and protections for each and every human being. They are not concerned with the rights of every human, only of women, and their treatment of women is not that of a humanist but that of a nationalist. Whenever a woman is not the victim but the perpetrator they will be loyal not to equality but to women, to the “nation”.

To hide this contradiction between feminism and humanism, which demonstrates that feminism is similar to nationalism, feminists have no choice but to apply two rationalizations. Firstly, to argue that women are never violent or “very rarely”. This is said by feminists because they assume, not necessarily explicitly, that if they can believe that women are never violent then even if feminism is nationalism and not humanism it “won’t make a difference” because there will be no instances when feminists support injustice by siding with “the nation” instead of with equality – since women simply never hurt someone from the other sex. Because of the refuting data showing that women do anything that men do and in some areas nearly in similar rates (as presented from time to time in this blog), feminists are constantly in struggle of keeping the idea that women never hurt men believable. As a result they need to apply a second rationalization – that whenever a woman does hurt a man or a boy, it’s justifiable. And feminists would go to great lengths to describe a female perpetrator as the victim, to maintain, ultimately, their belief that they can be nationalists (of sex-nationalism) and yet not the anti-humanists that nationalists often are (if all women who do hurt someone from the other sex can be presented as only exhibiting “reactive” violence – including in “reacting” in adulthood to events that occurred decades earlier in childhood with people completely unrelated to the present incident – then feminists can retain the belief that they can be sex-nationalists without it causing them to support inequality – that is, to prefer the “nation” over principles of equality). If no means of describing a female perpetrator as a victim are available, feminists would finally attempt to describe her actions as justifiable “globally”, “holistically”, as part of a general conflict between women and men – which would be the very same response of a nationalist.

On their way to continue disguising nationalism as humanism, feminists are left with no other choice but to legitimize female violence and crimes, hiding perpetrators, suppressing data, and silencing victims, because without all that it will be evident that when a feminist has to apply humanism, she always chooses nationalism – the rights of all humans do not concern her, but only the arbitrary classification of individuals into what she sees as “her group” and “the group of others”, as a nationalist.

But the discussion is far from being only about the fact that feminism is a type of sex-nationalism more than anything resembling universal humanism. Under the pretext of self-affiliation with humanism, separatist feminists have been able to advance into a large number of positions of power, until they had enough power to replace in many cultural frameworks universal humanism with separatist feminism, calling the new method, “humanism”, which is why many younger feminists who did not witness the replacement, attempt to define feminism, with the definition of humanism (feminists always defined feminism as the women’s rights movement, not as “equality for all”). Feminists have taken the definition of humanism and “painted” it on separatist feminism – feminism remained feminism but it now claimed to be humanism by claiming for itslef the definition of humanism. While it is not and never was universal humanism, but as shown above, a type of nationalism.

But if a movement concerned with the human rights of only one part of humanity, and articulating the human rights of only one part, is seen as the universal framework for equality, we need to ask where, then, the human rights, the equal human dignity and the equal human value of the other part are articulated? The answer is that under such circumstances, the humanity of that other part of humanity that was never included in the “nation”, are articulated nowhere. And are the concern of no one.

We see then, that by being in fact sex-nationalism and not humanism, but pretending first to be part of humanism and then humanism itself – all of humanism – and eventually being seen as the universal framework of equality and rights for all humans, feminism, becomes a severe form of chauvinism. It becomes the denial of the very humanity of half of humanity. If it was still defining itslef as “a party”, within “a larger framework called humanism” – then it could still attempt to show that sex-nationalism is “part of” universal humanism for all. But once a party concerned only with the humanity and rights of half of humanity demands to be accepted and is accepted as being itslef humanism, that is, the holistic and universal framework for human rights and equality, then half of humanity is left out of what is now seen as the only and universal framework of rights and equality.

The problem with applying separatism as a framework of equality, and this is what fundamentally makes separatism different from universal humanism – this is where the error lies – is that if separatism succeeds in achieving its goals it defeats itself and becomes what if fought against. Because it was separatist. It only articulated and was concerned with rights of part of humanity, so if it becomes a hegemony part of humanity with its rights is left represented nowhere. Separatism, is the inverse of universalism. It is the idea that “every person will choose some attribute he or she happens to have, treat all humans with that attribute as ‘a group’ separated from humanity, and fight only for the rights of what he/she now regards as ‘his/her group’ instead of everyone supporting everyone”. If adopted instead of universalism as an equality-movement, by accomplishing its goal of taking the place of any other equality perception, separatism necessarily and by definition becomes chauvinism. Becoming what is fought against is the essential and unsolvable self-defeating genetics of separatism. Of feminism.

I am inviting women to be humanists, not feminists. Feminism is sex-nationalism. It is leading only to more chauvinism, a female one, not to equality. Humanism is sufficient. Humanism has achieved almost all the equality women have, not feminism. I’m so sorry, women were told by feminists that they owe them their rights but this is historically not the case. It was universal humanism of people of both sexes who joined forces together that reached that, not separatist feminism. Women don’t need and never needed sex-nationalism for rights, only universal humanism, and on the other hand, sex-nationalism only makes women the chauvinists, and there’s no humanism in that, and no benefit for any human of any sex.

You can help this website continue operating by downloading from Amazon the book Lovism. All revenues are devoted to the maintenance of the website and for disseminating the articles published in it. Your support is greatly appreciated.

You can also support this website via Patreon: www.patreon.com/henryblair

Photo by Jonas Jacobsson 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