"a broader problem that has come to pervade our politics: substituting a semantic argument as a surrogate for a substantive one"
100%. Aka, "Academics ruin everything."
You know there's a problem when a social justice movement starts playing around with the meaning of words. Feminism began to split around the "womxn" era. Anti-racism start…
"a broader problem that has come to pervade our politics: substituting a semantic argument as a surrogate for a substantive one"
100%. Aka, "Academics ruin everything."
You know there's a problem when a social justice movement starts playing around with the meaning of words. Feminism began to split around the "womxn" era. Anti-racism started to get toxic when the "racism = power plus privilege" folks started chiming in. Now here we are with trans activists trying to redefine the word "woman" itself.
Equality movements (and everything else really) thrive on concrete, measurable goals that aim to help people; voting and employment rights for women, the end of segregation, legalising gay marriage. Sensible people can get behind them, everybody who opposes them has to reveal how bigoted they are, and the arc of the moral universe gets to continue bending towards justice.
The people playing around with semantics are, without exception, the people least, if at all, affected by the injustice faced by their "group." So they have time to play stupid games that ultimately harm their cause far more than help it. And give ammunition to those who oppose them by being both outspoken and completely out of touch with the reality of most people.
“You know there's a problem when a social justice movement starts playing around with the meaning of words.”
And a related move, subtly changing the vocabulary of the conversation. From “equal pay for equal work” (a concrete, measurable goal) to “equal pay for comparable worth.” (Who’s to say what work is of comparable worth to what other work? That’s what markets are for.) From “racial equality” to “equity.” And so on. After which, using the older term becomes a punishable offense, so that speaking in favor of racial equality flags you as a bigot.
It’s Alice in Wonderland come to life: “the question is whether you *can* make words mean so many different things.”
Feminism originally pursued goals like equality in wages; women were notoriously underpaid compared to men doing the same work nd when occupations like nursing because feminized their wages fell.
And lo, feminism made some progress. Wages converged a little. Not completely but measurably. One would think this would be cause for celebration.
This isn't what happened.
Some feminists were in it for equality and political gain; others were in it for the rage. When I volunteered at a co-op I got smoldering glares from feminists with facial hair because I was male.
Anyway this is when the womon/womyn and fish/bicycle bullshit started and discussions switched from wage equality to immeasurables like patriarchal attitudes.
Can anyone say we're making progress toward diminishing patriarchal attitudes?
"a broader problem that has come to pervade our politics: substituting a semantic argument as a surrogate for a substantive one"
100%. Aka, "Academics ruin everything."
You know there's a problem when a social justice movement starts playing around with the meaning of words. Feminism began to split around the "womxn" era. Anti-racism started to get toxic when the "racism = power plus privilege" folks started chiming in. Now here we are with trans activists trying to redefine the word "woman" itself.
Equality movements (and everything else really) thrive on concrete, measurable goals that aim to help people; voting and employment rights for women, the end of segregation, legalising gay marriage. Sensible people can get behind them, everybody who opposes them has to reveal how bigoted they are, and the arc of the moral universe gets to continue bending towards justice.
The people playing around with semantics are, without exception, the people least, if at all, affected by the injustice faced by their "group." So they have time to play stupid games that ultimately harm their cause far more than help it. And give ammunition to those who oppose them by being both outspoken and completely out of touch with the reality of most people.
Your entire response here is spun gold, Steve.
“You know there's a problem when a social justice movement starts playing around with the meaning of words.”
And a related move, subtly changing the vocabulary of the conversation. From “equal pay for equal work” (a concrete, measurable goal) to “equal pay for comparable worth.” (Who’s to say what work is of comparable worth to what other work? That’s what markets are for.) From “racial equality” to “equity.” And so on. After which, using the older term becomes a punishable offense, so that speaking in favor of racial equality flags you as a bigot.
It’s Alice in Wonderland come to life: “the question is whether you *can* make words mean so many different things.”
"concrete, measurable goals"
Steve rings the bell.
Feminism originally pursued goals like equality in wages; women were notoriously underpaid compared to men doing the same work nd when occupations like nursing because feminized their wages fell.
And lo, feminism made some progress. Wages converged a little. Not completely but measurably. One would think this would be cause for celebration.
This isn't what happened.
Some feminists were in it for equality and political gain; others were in it for the rage. When I volunteered at a co-op I got smoldering glares from feminists with facial hair because I was male.
Anyway this is when the womon/womyn and fish/bicycle bullshit started and discussions switched from wage equality to immeasurables like patriarchal attitudes.
Can anyone say we're making progress toward diminishing patriarchal attitudes?