There seems to be a new trend: anti-feminists and people afraid of
associating with feminism are co-opting the term “humanist” to distance
themselves from misogyny. This act is not only an expression of
anti-intellectualism but also a means of reinforcing patriarchy.
Humanism is an established theory
that advocates the supremacy of the human being, as opposed to the divine.
Accordingly, its primary focus is on rationalism. In addition, it entails the
importance of the individual, democracy, human rights, personal responsibility,
ethics, and creativity. It has nothing to do with equality. So, arguing that
humanism offers an alternative to feminism evinces a lack of understanding of
what both these terms mean.
Contrary to the insecurities of anti-feminists, feminism does not mean believing
that women are superior to men. On the contrary, it is a response to the
patriarchal system that values only the ideas, labour, aspirations, bodies, and
lives of men—and even more so, men belonging to the dominant group. Those who
reject it tend to do so owing to ignorance, the fear of upsetting the status
quo that they feel protects them, or the fear of losing their privilege.
Despite the hard work of many scholars and writers throughout the world
to educate about the concept of privilege,
people still don’t seem to get it. I see all kinds of white people and upper
class/upper caste people who firmly believe that they are where they are entirely
because of merit, and that those who haven’t made the same achievements just
aren’t working hard enough, or those who devote themselves to activism are just
whining and making trouble. Adopting such an attitude is in itself an assertion
of privilege; if you aren’t fighting systemic discrimination, you can go
through life without ever seeing it and therefore believe that it doesn’t
exist.
In Canada, you needn’t look far to find white people claiming that
those who discuss race are promoting racism, and similarly in India, there are
many people claiming that those who discuss caste discrimination are promoting
casteism. Some make these assertions due to the ignorance their privileged
position affords them, while others have a more insidious agenda to derail the
conversation and do their bit to ensure that the hierarchy remains intact. The
same is true of discussions about feminism, where the latter type is
reinforcing patriarchy.
The desire of anti-feminists to appropriate humanism reminds me of the
backlash to the Black Lives Matter movement. The top dogs are so used to being
at the centre of everything that they can’t handle a discussion that isn’t
about them; thus, the “All Lives Matter” misdirection was born, evincing a
complete lack of regard for the structural racism that black people continue to
face. The word “feminist” doesn’t mention men, so it doesn’t hit the right note
for everyone, and since our patriarchal cultures revolve around men, using a
term directed at the feminine is a faux pas. In addition, if you pretend a
problem doesn’t exist, you don’t have to fix it. And isn’t that the point?
