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?
I would make the argument that the difference between A and B is not “dialing down the feminism”, but more about the general demeanor/civility/methods. You can address the issues of B without blaming it on feminism.
If you take two people who are vegan. A will sit down and talk to you about the reasons behind their choice to be vegan, and try to convince you to give veganism a try or even just reduce your meat consumption and supplement it with vegan meals. And B will get in your face and yell at you about what a horrible monster you are for eating animal products. I wouldn’t say that B is “more vegan” than A. And I wouldn’t say that the problem with B is that they’re too vegan. The issue is with how they treat others.
You can address the issues of B without blaming it on feminism.
I wouldn’t ‘blame it on feminism’, but the ideology being the motivator for the behavior is why it makes sense to me that refraining from it would ‘qualify’ as ‘dialing down the feminism’.
Does that make sense?
If you take two people who are vegan. A will sit down and talk to you about the reasons behind their choice to be vegan, and try to convince you to give veganism a try or even just reduce your meat consumption and supplement it with vegan meals. And B will get in your face and yell at you about what a horrible monster you are for eating animal products. I wouldn’t say that B is “more vegan” than A. And I wouldn’t say that the problem with B is that they’re too vegan.
But if someone (call them C lol) told B to ‘dial down the veganism’ in response to that behavior, I think the average/typical person within earshot of the exchange would obviously understand what’s being communicated, and I don’t think they’d be thinking C is blaming veganism itself, just criticizing B’s behavior in the name of that ideology.
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.
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?
I would make the argument that the difference between A and B is not “dialing down the feminism”, but more about the general demeanor/civility/methods. You can address the issues of B without blaming it on feminism.
If you take two people who are vegan. A will sit down and talk to you about the reasons behind their choice to be vegan, and try to convince you to give veganism a try or even just reduce your meat consumption and supplement it with vegan meals. And B will get in your face and yell at you about what a horrible monster you are for eating animal products. I wouldn’t say that B is “more vegan” than A. And I wouldn’t say that the problem with B is that they’re too vegan. The issue is with how they treat others.
I wouldn’t ‘blame it on feminism’, but the ideology being the motivator for the behavior is why it makes sense to me that refraining from it would ‘qualify’ as ‘dialing down the feminism’.
Does that make sense?
But if someone (call them C lol) told B to ‘dial down the veganism’ in response to that behavior, I think the average/typical person within earshot of the exchange would obviously understand what’s being communicated, and I don’t think they’d be thinking C is blaming veganism itself, just criticizing B’s behavior in the name of that ideology.
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.