6 ms·

the formula for small "c" conservative language-policing among post-critical folk seems to be: 1) identify a criticism of some traditional power structure (mas

by smhost 8y ago

the formula for small "c" conservative language-policing among post-critical folk seems to be: 1) identify a criticism of some traditional power structure (masculinity) 2) hijack the critical language and turn it on itself into a contradiction (anti-sexism is itself sexist) it's the same formula for everything from "atheism is itself a religion" to "anti-racism is racism against white people". to me it just seems like a very childish defense mechanism, like if nobody is allowed to talk about the problem then the problem will just go away.

js8 8y ago
This is a big misunderstanding. You can criticize power structures in gender-neutral way. You can say, for example, "social hierarchy" instead of "patriarchy". You can talk about "movement for gender equality" instead of "feminism". You can talk about "being asshole" or "taking too much risks" or other trait instead of "toxic masculinity". I actually agree with the feminist critique (for the most part), I think where they are wrong is putting people into gender boxes. And I don't think other movements for equality (for example, movements for racial and sexual equality) do this to such extent.
- smhost 8y ago
  the point is that our history is gendered. i mean, the history of western thought is almost entirely white and male. if i want to take politics seriously, i immediately come into contact with the patriarchy because we all live in the shadow of great white men. i don't see why language shouldn't reflect history, especially political language.
  - js8 8y ago
    "i don't see why language shouldn't reflect history, especially political language" I do see why it shouldn't (unless you are historian, perhaps). If we are to move, as a society, beyond the discrimination of the past, we need to drop the divisive language, too. It is why I think even the term "feminism" should be dropped and replaced with "gender equality movement" (perhaps in somewhat shorter, witty form). I think, in general, to structure equality movements around specific identity makes sense in the beginning. But when the movement gains large enough support from society, it will become counter-productive, because it emphasizes the difference rather than sameness. (And I suspect for this very reason, many people, even women, support feminism but are avoiding the label itself.)
    - smhost 8y ago
      if you're truly worried that language has the power to reproduce past injustices, you should be trying to part with the language of the oppressor, not the language of the oppressed
      - js8 8y ago
        I want to part with the language that's unjust, regardless of who used it in the past. There is a historical precedent, although it's kinda cliche. When communists came to power, former intelligentsia and bourgeoisie was often replaced by people from the former working class, and the people from the former were even persecuted. They even called it "classless society". And it didn't work very well. It was an attempt to rectify those past injustices, without consideration what is just here and now. So no, we shouldn't mindlessly take norms of the oppressed. So at some point, there needs to be a line drawn, and said, the injustice is in the past, and from now, hopefully, there will be justice. And at that point, you need to stop referring to past injustices as a justification for anything.
        smhost 8y ago
        you seem to want to move to a genderless language similar to the example you gave ("classless society"). i'm skeptical that that will work either, since there is really no precedent for that kind of postmodern language existing alongside successful emancipatory politics. also, as a side note, the soviets didn't actually believe that they had achieved a classless society, they thought of themselves as a placeholder or an accelerant, unless you're thinking of something else. also, what you're saying reminds me of the novel "the dispossessed" by ursula k le guin where there's a civilization that has erased all concepts of hierarchy from its language and culture. it's seems rather dystopian, but maybe you disagree.
        js8 8y ago
        "you seem to want to move to a genderless language" Not really, I don't think language is that important, I think in the few cases I presented it just hurts the cause (because it makes it seem that it is about power for some other group rather than equality). But I am not particularly against e.g. gendered pronouns. But maybe... "there is really no precedent for that kind of postmodern language existing alongside successful emancipatory politics" I disagree. I think there are examples of emancipation where the language that was previously used day-to-day (for example, to refer to somebody with the n-word) fell into disuse. In fact, I think it's natural to happen if the emancipation is successful (because people will simply stop caring about the divide). So maybe there will eventually be no gender pronouns. I can't really take fiction as an argument, but I am reminded of Greg Egan's novel Schild's Ladder, which has humans in far far future, having no actual gender and even opt-in bodies, and ironically, the last thing that reminds people there ever was such a thing as gender, are gendered pronouns (which are entirely a matter of personal choice).
- mcphage 8y ago
  > You can say, for example, "social hierarchy" instead of "patriarchy". If you're afraid to even name the social hierarchy that we have, why would anybody expect you to be willing or able to put in the hard work of fixing its problems?
  - CompanionCuuube 8y ago
    >> You can say, for example, "social hierarchy" instead of "patriarchy". >If you're afraid to even name the social hierarchy that we have The objection is not a fear of the naming, but how using it that way is reinforcing the causes that led to the existing problem.
  - js8 8y ago
    I am not sure what you mean by "afraid to name it". I don't want to mislabel it. Just like it's not Jewish, or heterosexual, it's not male either. We know there is one mostly based on wealth and income (if you're in the West), and then there are many local ones based pretty much on managerial position that people have in various companies. In general, it is culture-specific. I personally think we would be better off without social hierarchies (in short, money shouldn't play role in politics and economy should be organized as cooperatives), and I don't see mislabeling it as "patriarchy" helping in any way to achieve that goal.
    - palimpsests 8y ago
      Wait, so how is patriarchy not referring to male genderedness? If something is a result of or related to the phenomenon of patriarchy (as that term is understood by a majority of folks), I don't see how labeling it as such could be construed as mislabeling.
leereeves 8y ago
When you start arguing that it's ok to discriminate against or insult people because of what different people in the past have done, you have indeed become what you hate. We can't change history. We can't fix past injustices with new injustices in the present; that's just creating new injustices and new divisions. The best we can do is treat each other well from this point forward.
- smhost 8y ago
  the APA isn't "arguing that it's ok to discriminate against or insult people because of what different people in the past have done" it's trying to rectify e.g. the fact that psychological norms were previously based on the psychology of well-functioning white men. until very recently, nobody thought of this as being biased. it's only with the introduction of feminist thought and feminist language into this sphere that these biases were made apparent.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    > norms were previously based on the psychology of well-functioning white men. And now they've gone to the other extreme, declaring those same norms "harmful". I'm fine with confronting biases and accepting a wide range of behavior, but I wonder why the APA is embracing intolerance.
    - smhost 8y ago
      it's not "the other extreme." it's just a more objective view. it's just true that traditional masculine norms leads to circumstances where: > boys are disproportionately represented among schoolchildren with learning difficulties (e.g., lower standardized test scores) and behavior problems (e.g., bullying, school suspensions, aggression). Likewise, men are overrepresented in prisons, are more likely than women to commit violent crimes, and are at greatest risk of being a victim of violent crime
      - leereeves 8y ago

by smhost 8y ago

js8 8y ago

This is a big misunderstanding. You can criticize power structures in gender-neutral way. You can say, for example, "social hierarchy" instead of "patriarchy". You can talk about "movement for gender equality" instead of "feminism". You can talk about "being asshole" or "taking too much risks" or other trait instead of "toxic masculinity". I actually agree with the feminist critique (for the most part), I think where they are wrong is putting people into gender boxes. And I don't think other movements for equality (for example, movements for racial and sexual equality) do this to such extent.

smhost 8y ago
the point is that our history is gendered. i mean, the history of western thought is almost entirely white and male. if i want to take politics seriously, i immediately come into contact with the patriarchy because we all live in the shadow of great white men. i don't see why language shouldn't reflect history, especially political language.
- js8 8y ago
  "i don't see why language shouldn't reflect history, especially political language" I do see why it shouldn't (unless you are historian, perhaps). If we are to move, as a society, beyond the discrimination of the past, we need to drop the divisive language, too. It is why I think even the term "feminism" should be dropped and replaced with "gender equality movement" (perhaps in somewhat shorter, witty form). I think, in general, to structure equality movements around specific identity makes sense in the beginning. But when the movement gains large enough support from society, it will become counter-productive, because it emphasizes the difference rather than sameness. (And I suspect for this very reason, many people, even women, support feminism but are avoiding the label itself.)
  - smhost 8y ago
    if you're truly worried that language has the power to reproduce past injustices, you should be trying to part with the language of the oppressor, not the language of the oppressed
    - js8 8y ago
      I want to part with the language that's unjust, regardless of who used it in the past. There is a historical precedent, although it's kinda cliche. When communists came to power, former intelligentsia and bourgeoisie was often replaced by people from the former working class, and the people from the former were even persecuted. They even called it "classless society". And it didn't work very well. It was an attempt to rectify those past injustices, without consideration what is just here and now. So no, we shouldn't mindlessly take norms of the oppressed. So at some point, there needs to be a line drawn, and said, the injustice is in the past, and from now, hopefully, there will be justice. And at that point, you need to stop referring to past injustices as a justification for anything.
      - smhost 8y ago
        you seem to want to move to a genderless language similar to the example you gave ("classless society"). i'm skeptical that that will work either, since there is really no precedent for that kind of postmodern language existing alongside successful emancipatory politics. also, as a side note, the soviets didn't actually believe that they had achieved a classless society, they thought of themselves as a placeholder or an accelerant, unless you're thinking of something else. also, what you're saying reminds me of the novel "the dispossessed" by ursula k le guin where there's a civilization that has erased all concepts of hierarchy from its language and culture. it's seems rather dystopian, but maybe you disagree.
        js8 8y ago
        "you seem to want to move to a genderless language" Not really, I don't think language is that important, I think in the few cases I presented it just hurts the cause (because it makes it seem that it is about power for some other group rather than equality). But I am not particularly against e.g. gendered pronouns. But maybe... "there is really no precedent for that kind of postmodern language existing alongside successful emancipatory politics" I disagree. I think there are examples of emancipation where the language that was previously used day-to-day (for example, to refer to somebody with the n-word) fell into disuse. In fact, I think it's natural to happen if the emancipation is successful (because people will simply stop caring about the divide). So maybe there will eventually be no gender pronouns. I can't really take fiction as an argument, but I am reminded of Greg Egan's novel Schild's Ladder, which has humans in far far future, having no actual gender and even opt-in bodies, and ironically, the last thing that reminds people there ever was such a thing as gender, are gendered pronouns (which are entirely a matter of personal choice).
mcphage 8y ago
> You can say, for example, "social hierarchy" instead of "patriarchy". If you're afraid to even name the social hierarchy that we have, why would anybody expect you to be willing or able to put in the hard work of fixing its problems?
- CompanionCuuube 8y ago
  >> You can say, for example, "social hierarchy" instead of "patriarchy". >If you're afraid to even name the social hierarchy that we have The objection is not a fear of the naming, but how using it that way is reinforcing the causes that led to the existing problem.
- js8 8y ago
  I am not sure what you mean by "afraid to name it". I don't want to mislabel it. Just like it's not Jewish, or heterosexual, it's not male either. We know there is one mostly based on wealth and income (if you're in the West), and then there are many local ones based pretty much on managerial position that people have in various companies. In general, it is culture-specific. I personally think we would be better off without social hierarchies (in short, money shouldn't play role in politics and economy should be organized as cooperatives), and I don't see mislabeling it as "patriarchy" helping in any way to achieve that goal.
  - palimpsests 8y ago
    Wait, so how is patriarchy not referring to male genderedness? If something is a result of or related to the phenomenon of patriarchy (as that term is understood by a majority of folks), I don't see how labeling it as such could be construed as mislabeling.

leereeves 8y ago

When you start arguing that it's ok to discriminate against or insult people because of what different people in the past have done, you have indeed become what you hate. We can't change history. We can't fix past injustices with new injustices in the present; that's just creating new injustices and new divisions. The best we can do is treat each other well from this point forward.

smhost 8y ago
the APA isn't "arguing that it's ok to discriminate against or insult people because of what different people in the past have done" it's trying to rectify e.g. the fact that psychological norms were previously based on the psychology of well-functioning white men. until very recently, nobody thought of this as being biased. it's only with the introduction of feminist thought and feminist language into this sphere that these biases were made apparent.
- leereeves 8y ago
  > norms were previously based on the psychology of well-functioning white men. And now they've gone to the other extreme, declaring those same norms "harmful". I'm fine with confronting biases and accepting a wide range of behavior, but I wonder why the APA is embracing intolerance.
  - smhost 8y ago
    it's not "the other extreme." it's just a more objective view. it's just true that traditional masculine norms leads to circumstances where: > boys are disproportionately represented among schoolchildren with learning difficulties (e.g., lower standardized test scores) and behavior problems (e.g., bullying, school suspensions, aggression). Likewise, men are overrepresented in prisons, are more likely than women to commit violent crimes, and are at greatest risk of being a victim of violent crime
    - leereeves 8y ago