5 ms·

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 imm

by 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).
- Izkata 8y ago
  > It is why I think even the term "feminism" should be dropped and replaced with "gender equality movement" (perhaps in somewhat shorter, witty form). "Egalitarianism"

by smhost 8y ago

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).
Izkata 8y ago
> It is why I think even the term "feminism" should be dropped and replaced with "gender equality movement" (perhaps in somewhat shorter, witty form). "Egalitarianism"