> you're really good at talking about the patriarchy without talking about the patriarchy
I’m not sure I read this comment in the same tone as the author seems to have. Calling something what it is is an important part of addressing it. Even if you might not persuade everyone. Whitewashing conflict just makes it less clear what your position is.
I think this is the problem the article is addressing -- "calling something what it is" doesn't convince people that don't agree with you on what it is, especially when the terms you use are loaded with possible implicit interpretations. A lot of this is related to the implied worldview these words drag in.
> Whitewashing conflict just makes it less clear what your position is.
Which is to say that in a discussion or persuasive piece, it should be clear what you are arguing for or discussing without having to expose your whole worldview. Arguments about the distribution of chores between males and females in a household, doesn't need to use the word "patriarchy" to make its argument. In fact, it tends to make the argument weaker given that "patriarchy" hides a lot of things that would otherwise need to be unpacked.
If you want to convince people of a point, tie the point to as little extraneous baggage as possible. Choosing the terms you express it in is part of avoiding baggage. (If your point is to let those who agree with you rejoice in the obvious rightness of their opinion, that's different. But that's an approach that does little to actually change things that, per your position, need changed.)
The whole framework that... men traditionally exercise greater power than women? That framework which... nearly all humans can at least identify as historically accurate? What a reach to expect you to engage with a nearly universal reality!
> If you're trying to persuade me, I probably don't already buy that framework. In fact, I probably reject it. But if you show me that the distribution of chores comes out unfairly to females, you now have a starting point for persuading me about the rest of the package.
So, you're all ears about worldview changing facts, but don't you dare name anything?
> If you want to convince people of a point, tie the point to as little extraneous baggage as possible. Choosing the terms you express it in is part of avoiding baggage. (If your point is to let those who agree with you rejoice in the obvious rightness of their opinion, that's different. But that's an approach that does little to actually change things that, per your position, need changed.)
There's a third option: the vast majority of persuasion in history doesn't come from sympathy or empathy, it comes from winning. The side which defends what already is sets the terms that naming things is too much for people to accept, and they invest an awful lot in convincing people of that claim. The side which has prevailed over mass misery and made more of humanity's identity and bounty available has repeatedly refused to accept those terms and has confronted them.
If true, then...
> The whole framework that... men traditionally exercise greater power than women? That framework which... nearly all humans can at least identify as historically accurate? What a reach to expect you to engage with a nearly universal reality!
No, not reality - not if persuasion comes from winning. The framework that lately is winning, which has nothing to do with reality.
That is, you can't have it both ways. Either "patriarchy" is an objectively correct way to view the world, in which case people can be persuaded by objective truth, or else people are persuaded by winning, in which case patriarchy is just what's winning at the academy these days.
The understanding that a large majority of people share about present reality isn’t something that requires persuasion. The persuasion has already occurred. Persuasion is about parting someone from existing beliefs or introducing new ones that you hope they adopt.
> [...] or else people are persuaded by winning, in which case patriarchy is just what's winning at the academy these days.
A lot of people are persuaded by winning, which is part of why certain harmful ideas prevail, at least for a time. My point was that challenging harmful ideas by making their influence untenable is often more effective than trying to reason people out of positions they didn’t reason themselves into in the first place.
For instance, the expansion of hate group activity and open participation in recent years wasn’t because there was a sudden surge of interest in hate. It was because several political movements mired in hate gained power and prominence. Sure, it also expanded their mindshare reach, but it mostly just made people motivated by hate less afraid to show it.
Convincing people to abandon hate and embrace the humanity of the people they hate is an enormous investment, usually deeply personal in a way that doesn’t scale, and seldom effective. Convincing people that if they act on their hate they’ll likely experience substantial negative consequences is a lot more effective and a lot more scalable.
You have to determine, for whatever issue or belief expression, whether that level of conflict is appropriate. But if you do believe the risk of leaving an idea to fester is significantly greater than the risk of stifling the idea, the conflict is well warranted.
This isn’t just academic. Millions upon millions of dead bodies are at stake. And that’s not hyperbole, we already have many instances in history showing this, both in terms of their impact unchecked and their impact when confronted.
In conclusion: I do not wish to convince nazis not to kill me and nearly everyone I love by changing their minds. I wish to prevent them from doing so with the confidence that I have every natural moral right to do so I can imagine.
I think the article has misidentified the problem.
> "calling something what it is" doesn't convince people
Very seldom does anything convince anyone of anything.
> that don't agree with you on what it is, especially when the terms you use are loaded with possible implicit interpretations.
These kinds of culture signals work both ways. They can be used to filter out—to identify world views you don't wish to engage—but they can also be used to filter for refining one's own worldview. Identifying where an idea comes from a shared set of values and might illuminate something you haven't already considered within that same value structure (or might expand it).
> Which is to say that in a discussion or persuasive piece, it should be clear what you are arguing for or discussing without having to expose your whole worldview.
I categorically disagree with should here. You're welcome to value that, if your motivation is to engage in rigorous debate absent the impact that the topic of debate might have. If my motivation is to engage the topics by impacting them, I might care less about the rigor and more about some degree of blunt force response to the kinds of things which leave people I care about traumatized or dead.
> Arguments about the distribution of chores between males and females in a household, doesn't need to use the word "patriarchy" to make its argument.
It doesn't need to, but to the extent the argument is aware of patriarchy omitting it is either dishonestly hiding a system of power or reinventing a process of describing it that has generations of prior art.
> In fact, it tends to make the argument weaker given that "patriarchy" hides a lot of things that would otherwise need to be unpacked.
Hiding in what way? Why would a more assertive and clear description of the case obscure more of the reality than something mealymouthed?