Clarifying an ambiguous concept; co-opting a common word
There's a video floating on the internet from a woman who contends she doesn't need feminism and thoughtfully explains why:
What she really highlights is a problem about how nuanced academic concepts get lost in public advocacy--her arguments apply more to feminist advocates and organizations.
To many, she still qualifies as a feminist. Specifically because she's pointing out injustices which men experience that people don't hear. I'll explain:
Feminism (in academia) at the core is about power inequality (doesn't matter for what gender or group of people), and by questioning the way we tend to look at power dynamics [1]. Feminism focuses on prevailing oppression and the injustice that an oppressed/minority group tends to suffer in situations that could be resolved ethically.
Unfortunately, the way the language is used, feminism sounds like it dismisses all the other realities that men face.
It's a lot like how #BlackLivesMatter and #AllLivesMatter hashtag users run into dispute, or when scholars/social justice practitioners talk about "blackness/whiteness" without giving appropriate context and room for the public to take ownership of a word that seems like it had a common definition.
It sounds divisive because the labels seem to focus on the issues on face (black people and white people--similar to the way feminism comes across as 100% a divide between females and males), rather than the dynamics of the relationship that makes one group dominant or oppressive.
Lauren (the woman in the video) brings great perspective from the practical/advocacy side of things--all the stats and her arguments work, she takes ownership of the word "feminism" from a different (valid) perspective.
I'm willing to guess the core group of people who really drive the "movement" for feminism (or even the racial justice movements) have yet to recognize or acknowledge how the name "feminism" can lead to confusion to someone new to the idea don't realize it can cover more than just the genders implied by the name.
It's a severe flaw in the way we use "fuzzy" language, or when a group of people take ownership of ideas that seemed to have common appeal and understanding.
After this becomes public understanding, developing guidelines with peoples' "rights and responsibilities" for common language seems like the next step for people to take.
The fundamental ethical (and practical) question revolves around asking:
"how much right do individuals, or a significant population of people have for taking ownership of a common word or phrase's meaning?"
Today, conservatism and progressivism exemplify very specific political ideologies and histories in the U.S. Conservatism rarely if ever means including land conservation to a politician unless they want to appeal to the "outdoor sportsman" (AKA Hunting/Fishing) community. Progressive now gets stigmatized with government-sponsored care programs, rather than government policy that breaks out of political gridlock and actually functions to serve the people it's supposed to serve. It's frighteningly easy to associate
It's a subtle but classic example of a "tragedy of the commons" problem in our current events. And yes, we can beat the tragedy of the commons. It requires we trust, then verify to communicate and collaborate.
[1] Feminism, see it in action here! Julie Nelson's critique about how most economists avoid ethics in their considerations, what it means for making "objective" interpretations, and how feminism applies to it. http://scholarworks.umb.edu/econ_faculty_pubs/32/
Fuzzy concepts, wikipedia has a satisfying enough description: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_concept
Tragedy of the Commons:
http://college.usatoday.com/2015/07/17/psychology-professors-tricky-extra-credit-question-goes-viral/
Real-life Tragedy of The Commons examples:
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/ten-reallife-examples-of-the-tragedy-of-the-common.html
Beating the Tragedy of the Commons:
http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/8104/Elinor_How%20Communities%20Beat%20the%20Tragedy%20of%20the%20Commons%20(Slides).pdf?sequence=1
There's a video floating on the internet from a woman who contends she doesn't need feminism and thoughtfully explains why:
What she really highlights is a problem about how nuanced academic concepts get lost in public advocacy--her arguments apply more to feminist advocates and organizations.
To many, she still qualifies as a feminist. Specifically because she's pointing out injustices which men experience that people don't hear. I'll explain:
Feminism (in academia) at the core is about power inequality (doesn't matter for what gender or group of people), and by questioning the way we tend to look at power dynamics [1]. Feminism focuses on prevailing oppression and the injustice that an oppressed/minority group tends to suffer in situations that could be resolved ethically.
Unfortunately, the way the language is used, feminism sounds like it dismisses all the other realities that men face.
It's a lot like how #BlackLivesMatter and #AllLivesMatter hashtag users run into dispute, or when scholars/social justice practitioners talk about "blackness/whiteness" without giving appropriate context and room for the public to take ownership of a word that seems like it had a common definition.
It sounds divisive because the labels seem to focus on the issues on face (black people and white people--similar to the way feminism comes across as 100% a divide between females and males), rather than the dynamics of the relationship that makes one group dominant or oppressive.
Lauren (the woman in the video) brings great perspective from the practical/advocacy side of things--all the stats and her arguments work, she takes ownership of the word "feminism" from a different (valid) perspective.
I'm willing to guess the core group of people who really drive the "movement" for feminism (or even the racial justice movements) have yet to recognize or acknowledge how the name "feminism" can lead to confusion to someone new to the idea don't realize it can cover more than just the genders implied by the name.
It's a severe flaw in the way we use "fuzzy" language, or when a group of people take ownership of ideas that seemed to have common appeal and understanding.
After this becomes public understanding, developing guidelines with peoples' "rights and responsibilities" for common language seems like the next step for people to take.
The fundamental ethical (and practical) question revolves around asking:
"how much right do individuals, or a significant population of people have for taking ownership of a common word or phrase's meaning?"
Today, conservatism and progressivism exemplify very specific political ideologies and histories in the U.S. Conservatism rarely if ever means including land conservation to a politician unless they want to appeal to the "outdoor sportsman" (AKA Hunting/Fishing) community. Progressive now gets stigmatized with government-sponsored care programs, rather than government policy that breaks out of political gridlock and actually functions to serve the people it's supposed to serve. It's frighteningly easy to associate
It's a subtle but classic example of a "tragedy of the commons" problem in our current events. And yes, we can beat the tragedy of the commons. It requires we trust, then verify to communicate and collaborate.
[1] Feminism, see it in action here! Julie Nelson's critique about how most economists avoid ethics in their considerations, what it means for making "objective" interpretations, and how feminism applies to it. http://scholarworks.umb.edu/econ_faculty_pubs/32/
Fuzzy concepts, wikipedia has a satisfying enough description: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_concept
Tragedy of the Commons:
http://college.usatoday.com/2015/07/17/psychology-professors-tricky-extra-credit-question-goes-viral/
Real-life Tragedy of The Commons examples:
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/ten-reallife-examples-of-the-tragedy-of-the-common.html
Beating the Tragedy of the Commons:
http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/8104/Elinor_How%20Communities%20Beat%20the%20Tragedy%20of%20the%20Commons%20(Slides).pdf?sequence=1
No comments:
Post a Comment