Surely she could have thought of a third position between those two so that a dial actually makes sense, over a switch.
Charitably-interpreted, it could be an impressively self-aware piece on the binary thinking of ideologues, to genuinely feel there is literally zero middle ground between those two extremes. But she probably actually feels that way.
It is possible to support a cause, even emphatically, without being insufferable. I’m reminded of an occasion a number of years back, when a friend of a friend tagging along with our group for the first time who, just after we all (group of 8-9) sat down to order dinner, ranted for minutes, completely unprompted, about how chairs are shaped in a misogynistic way, which led into the nonsensical claim that the only reason males tend to sit with their knees further apart than females, is as a deliberate act of patriarchal intimidation, not simply because the difference in pelvis shape makes those positions more comfortable/default for those bodies. There was no consideration of the fact that this difference exists just as much in men and women sitting alone at home, as it does in crowded public spaces.
This is all to say I have a feeling, especially based on her reaction to it, that the teacher’s comment was in response to something closer to the above, than to something like ‘a job shouldn’t pay someone less just because she’s a woman’.
P.S. This post is from 2018, for anyone who thinks it’s a recent happening, or anyone else who saw this and thought it looked familiar.
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.
Surely she could have thought of a third position between those two so that a dial actually makes sense, over a switch.
Charitably-interpreted, it could be an impressively self-aware piece on the binary thinking of ideologues, to genuinely feel there is literally zero middle ground between those two extremes. But she probably actually feels that way.
It is possible to support a cause, even emphatically, without being insufferable. I’m reminded of an occasion a number of years back, when a friend of a friend tagging along with our group for the first time who, just after we all (group of 8-9) sat down to order dinner, ranted for minutes, completely unprompted, about how chairs are shaped in a misogynistic way, which led into the nonsensical claim that the only reason males tend to sit with their knees further apart than females, is as a deliberate act of patriarchal intimidation, not simply because the difference in pelvis shape makes those positions more comfortable/default for those bodies. There was no consideration of the fact that this difference exists just as much in men and women sitting alone at home, as it does in crowded public spaces.
This is all to say I have a feeling, especially based on her reaction to it, that the teacher’s comment was in response to something closer to the above, than to something like ‘a job shouldn’t pay someone less just because she’s a woman’.
P.S. This post is from 2018, for anyone who thinks it’s a recent happening, or anyone else who saw this and thought it looked familiar.
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.