4 ms·
I choose to read it as "the future is more female than the past, which was predominantly male". If you choose to read it as "the future is only female" you can
by kennywinker 9y ago
I choose to read it as "the future is more female than the past, which was predominantly male".
If you choose to read it as "the future is only female" you can do that, but I'm fairly certain that's not how it's meant to be read.
To me inserting the "only" into the phrase is a lot like reading "black lives matter" as "only black lives matter". Sure the original slogan's phrasing is ambiguous, but it's a slogan and slogans are by necessity simplified.
- kelvin0 9y agoWell glad you could read between the lines for me. Because I sure don't get the impression this is meant to be 'let us work together for a better future were everyone is maximizing their potential as human beings' kinda slogan ...
- kennywinker 9y agoWhat part of it makes you uncomfortable?
- ruleabidinguser 9y agoThe future is female, NOT male
- kennywinker 9y agoWhat would be wrong with a female dominated world? Are women treated badly in a male dominated world or something?
- ruleabidinguser 9y agoIt's an anti male statement
- kennywinker 9y agoWhen you add the anti male bit on it is. "I love ny, not nj" is an anti nj statement.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Archio 9y ago>If you choose to read it as "the future is only female" you can do that, but I'm fairly certain that's not how it's meant to be read. But there are many well-intentioned people that WILL read it as that. And with this I fault the the writer and not the reader. I think this is one of the biggest problems modern liberal movements have with messaging. And I say this as someone who 100% is in support of "the future is more female than the past, which was predominantly male" and "black lives matter". I don't think the issue is in the nature of brevity in communication. When these movements create their slogans, their number one goal seems to be motivating and incensing the base of people that already agree with them. It seems that the question is never asked: "how will this messaging come across to people who don't already agree with us?" - let alone, "how can we convince those people to acclimate to our viewpoint?" A shirt that says "the future is only female" seems likely to increase vitriol by pushing away and shutting down well-meaning disaffecteds that might otherwise be convinced of the liberal cause.
- kennywinker 9y agoAre you saying that the slogan makes you anxious, or that it hypothetically harms the cause by being read badly by people who want to read it badly? Because I'm not sure that it's possible to come up with a slogan that isn't read badly by opponents. If you have examples, I'd love to see 'em.
- Archio 9y agoI'm not sure how you interpreted anxiety on my part here? The slogan does not make me anxious. I know what it "really" means, and as I stated previously I am 100% in support of that message. I am frustrated because I believe there are better ways to communicate it to people in a way that is generally more persuasive. I don't think it "hypothetically" harms the cause, I believe that it does. I only need speak to my more traditional extended family members, who will read slogans like this and react in a negative way, even though I know they could be convinced otherwise. Does it suck that they can't "read behind the lines" with slogans like this? Yeah. But public messaging is hard, and just amplifying existing messages won't solve that problem. Lastly, "I'm not sure that it's possible to come up with a slogan that isn't read badly by opponents" seems like kind of a cop-out. Of course it's impossible to say something someone will take issue with. Communicating messages isn't an all-or-nothing game, what I am saying is I think people need to do a better job changing minds than they are now.