5 ms·
I push back hard on the tumblr-ization of language, much as I do with the Luntz-ification of language perpetrated by right wing outlets like Fox News. Terms li
by gfodor 13y ago
I push back hard on the tumblr-ization of language, much as I do with the Luntz-ification of language perpetrated by right wing outlets like Fox News.
Terms like "patriarchy", "privilege", and even "problematic" serve to re-frame the debate in a way that causes many negative consequences. It is pretty much the same tactic used in politics to control the language in order to disarm your opponent before debate even begins.
First, it causes debates on issues to immediately have one side assume the premise. If we are having a discussion about privilege, then I am already conceding that in this instance I had privilege in the first place. Second, it turns small issues between individuals into illustrative examples of a wider power and class struggle, regardless of how appropriate such extrapolations might be. Third, it carves a lens through which all day-to-day human interactions may suddenly become viewed, where innocent actions that normally would have gone unnoticed become immediately magnified into sexist acts because they fit into a pre-conceived mold defined by this language and ideology (lets call it what it is) regardless of context. This is what the OP is talking about. Fourth, these terms provide no way to measure progress, similar to the "War on Terror", the "War on the Patriarchy and White Male Privilege" will never be won since it is by definition immeasurable against an enemy that is a concept. Finally, in this particular case it serves to cause women to see men, all men, as inherently flawed and part of a systemic regime of oppression, and men to see themselves that way too. This is all counterproductive, dare I say, problematic.
- tptacek 13y agoSince you haven't acknowledged a single substantive point from the Shanley post cited upthread, you should reconsider writing 250+ words about "framing" and Frank Luntz. And by "should", I mean that you should follow the Principle of Charity. If you'd like, you can wait to start doing that until the principle becomes an HN guideline. You might have a couple of weeks left to ignore it ('dang has more or less said it's coming). But since it's just a good plan regardless of what the site rules say, I think you should start now. The tendency for people to litigate framing, tone, and decorum instead of substantive points has a name in online feminist circles: "tone policing". I find the application of that term incredibly annoying. Which is why it's especially discomfiting to see someone directly play into the pattern of behavior the term was coined for.
- gfodor 13y agoIt seems you are doing the same thing you are accusing me of by not addressing my points. The specific calls to action she makes for the most part seem reasonable. But they are hung not just on a poor tone but a general worldview that in my view alienates both genders from one another and in general would cause more friction and emotional hurt in day to day life if it were adopted by all. Hence the reason I called out what I saw to be a poor comparison, the OP and Shanley are coming at this from what I think are completely different angles. (And yes I agree with you, the 'tone police' card is overplayed and stupid.)
- tptacek 13y agoYou understand that Britta wasn't saying "tell all your male friends to follow everything that Shanley says", right? She was saying, "this Shanley post has good suggestions in it". It turns out you agree. If you'd like the "tone police" card to get played less often, stop burying the lede that you agree with all the substantive points of this-or-that feminist blog post under a mountain of concern trolling about tone. You can buy yourself the rhetorical space to criticize someone's tone by demonstrating that you took their substantive points seriously. But read your comments; you can see clearly that you did nothing of the sort here.
- gfodor 13y agoFair enough.
- tptacek 13y agoHey, I'm being super snippy. Thank you for responding gracefully.
- Intermernet 13y agoSorry to slightly derail the point here, but "tone policing" seems to be all we get from most media, most government, and unfortunately most business leaders. It's not surprising that we see it all the time in online discussions,as it's become the new way of being "reasonable". In Australia we are having a debate about immigration. The actual debate is over the treatment of refugees (or "Illegal Immigrants" as the government calls them) that arrive by boat. The refugees (sorry "Illegal Immigrants") who arrive by boat are treated very differently from those that arrive by plane. In the last few decades, the refugees who arrive by boat aren't even just "Illegal Immigrants" anymore, they're "Boat People". And we need to "Stop The Boats". So, in less than 20 years, we've reduced the words "Boat" and "People" into snarling invective that the masses can spit at each other in self justifying jingoism. I agree that the "substantive points" in any statement are the ones that need to be considered, but if the majority of a country can be persuaded to be in fear of "People" who arrive on "Boats", then we need to recognise that the delivery is just as important as the substance. When we live in a society where "tone" itself can cause offense, then "tone policing" is probably, although unfortunately, justified.
- ben0x539 13y agoI think you're ascribing too much malice to academic language. Someone with privilege isn't seen as "inherently flawed", it just describes their position in society (particularly relative to someone else, it's not really useful as an absolute metric I guess). The patriarchy isn't posited as a freemasons-style conspiracy of evil men, it's just a coarse description of our society and the set of gender stereotypes etc.