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 who, just after we all 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, on average, males sit with their knees further apart than females, as a deliberate act of patriarchal intimidation, not simply because the difference in pelvis shape makes those positions more comfortable/default for those bodies.
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’.
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 who, just after we all 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, on average, males sit with their knees further apart than females, as a deliberate act of patriarchal intimidation, not simply because the difference in pelvis shape makes those positions more comfortable/default for those bodies.
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’.
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.