You misunderstood it. It’s a dial with infinite positions in between the two positions. All the way to the left is being “complicit in her dehumanization” so moving the dial at all would be inching closer and closer to her dehumanization. It’s a brilliant piece.
You misunderstood it. It’s a dial with infinite positions in between the two positions. All the way to the left is being “complicit in her dehumanization” so moving the dial at all would be inching closer and closer to her dehumanization.
But as my anecdote exemplifies, it is absolutely possible to move away from ‘raging feminist’ without moving one iota closer to ‘complicit in dehumanization’. Those two things are absolutely not at opposite ends of a spectrum, objectively.
As an example, let’s take two hypothetical feminists, A and B.
They both actively campaign and gather support toward ending sex discrimination in hiring practices, as part of the same organization. But only B randomly accosts male strangers on the street, interrogating them about the sex ratio at their workplace, and chastising them if it isn’t at least 50% female, regardless of what line of work he is in, and without consideration for whether the person actually has any hiring power.
Would you say A is more “complicit in her dehumanization” than B because she doesn’t do that? And do you think B advances the organization’s cause more effectively than A, by doing what she does?
But only B randomly accosts male strangers on the street, interrogating them about the sex ratio at their workplace, and chastising them if it isn’t at least 50% female, regardless of what line of work he is in.
If all things are equal between two people other than that behavior, then B would undoubtedly be closer to ‘raging feminist’ than A.
The point is that ‘emphaticness’/disruptiveness is not necessarily correlated with being productive to one’s cause. That friend of a friend I mentioned before accomplished nothing but annoying everyone with her out-of-nowhere rant. She didn’t put herself any further from ‘complicit in her own dehumanization’ than someone else in the exact same position who doesn’t do that.
Your apparently believe that disruptive behavior in the name of a cause has inherent merit. I gave a simple example of how that is absolutely not automatically true. One can be extremely disruptive in the name of a cause, absolutely merited, and one can be disruptive in the name of a cause in a way that’s completely pointless and counter-productive. In the same way, because the latter category of ‘disruptiveness’ exists, it is plainly stated that one engaging in that kind of disruption can, by refraining from it, be less disruptive without being any less of an advocate for their cause.
You misunderstood it. It’s a dial with infinite positions in between the two positions. All the way to the left is being “complicit in her dehumanization” so moving the dial at all would be inching closer and closer to her dehumanization. It’s a brilliant piece.
But as my anecdote exemplifies, it is absolutely possible to move away from ‘raging feminist’ without moving one iota closer to ‘complicit in dehumanization’. Those two things are absolutely not at opposite ends of a spectrum, objectively.
Can’t agree, but you’re welcome to your opinion.
That’s not an objectively true statement.
As an example, let’s take two hypothetical feminists, A and B.
They both actively campaign and gather support toward ending sex discrimination in hiring practices, as part of the same organization. But only B randomly accosts male strangers on the street, interrogating them about the sex ratio at their workplace, and chastising them if it isn’t at least 50% female, regardless of what line of work he is in, and without consideration for whether the person actually has any hiring power.
Would you say A is more “complicit in her dehumanization” than B because she doesn’t do that? And do you think B advances the organization’s cause more effectively than A, by doing what she does?
This is your definition of a raging feminist?
If all things are equal between two people other than that behavior, then B would undoubtedly be closer to ‘raging feminist’ than A.
The point is that ‘emphaticness’/disruptiveness is not necessarily correlated with being productive to one’s cause. That friend of a friend I mentioned before accomplished nothing but annoying everyone with her out-of-nowhere rant. She didn’t put herself any further from ‘complicit in her own dehumanization’ than someone else in the exact same position who doesn’t do that.
Your apparently believe that disruptive behavior in the name of a cause has inherent merit. I gave a simple example of how that is absolutely not automatically true. One can be extremely disruptive in the name of a cause, absolutely merited, and one can be disruptive in the name of a cause in a way that’s completely pointless and counter-productive. In the same way, because the latter category of ‘disruptiveness’ exists, it is plainly stated that one engaging in that kind of disruption can, by refraining from it, be less disruptive without being any less of an advocate for their cause.