Gender

[Paddy™]

I'm sorry! I was editing the post and clicked the wrong button...

Ahh if I had a penny for every time I've done that!

It still requires movement on the part of the society toward a change in attitudes. Because statistically, whatever I did experience isn't unique, it's extremely common and is a symptom of a much larger problem. Which means there needs to be a goal, a focus and a purposeful movement and shift in attitudes. I mean, hurray for humanism, but feminism isn't as vague and has a goal in mind: equality.

In all seriousness, what does feminism do that humanism doesn't towards the goal of equality? It sounds like a contradiction in terms to say that a feminist is more concerned with equality for all than a humanist. If it's the case that humanism is ineffectual when it comes to changing laws or pursuing social change, that's a problem with organisation rather than philosophy.

I don't even call myself a humanist, but I think it's a valid and easily-defended position to take. I mean, wanting to minimise harm and increase well-being for everyone is a good place to start for any philosophy. Historically, this hasn't been the case with feminism.

I tried to be kind in presenting privilege before (if I came off as abrasive, I apologize, I was honestly just trying be less formal), only to be referred to as extreme and radical and psuedo-feminist and revenge motivated (then referred to as over-emotional when I reacted).

I know I've certainly been guilty of having an "unhelpful" tone at times in this thread, so I don't fault anyone else for it, but I don't think you've said anything abrasive or argumentative. I wouldn't accuse you of being radical, either. Feminism itself, on the other hand...

Privilege is a simple sociological term that few in the field argue about. Can we just be clear on that?

Fair enough, I'm with ya.