You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

fubarobfusco comments on A Rationalist's Account of Objectification? - Less Wrong Discussion

43 Post author: lukeprog 19 March 2011 11:10PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (325)
Tags: gender

Comments (325)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 05 March 2013 07:02:03PM *  -1 points [-]

The privilege discussion is not about how to fix the problem

Er, isn't that the whole goal of feminism?

Hold off on proposing solutions.

In subjects like this, a lot of the discussion seems to be about:

  • Hey, I have this problem ....
  • Oh, me too! Nice to meet you.
  • A lot of us seem to have this problem, or something like it.
  • It reminds me of this other problem _____.
  • Hold on, it's not like _____ for me because _____.
  • Is it like _____ for you? Yes, and _____ too.
  • Oh wow, it's good to hear this isn't just me being weird!
  • Is it similar to _____? Maybe, in these ways, but not in those ways.
  • What kinds of things have people done about it? Did that help?
  • If we _____, we'd best be sure not to _____ by mistake ....

In other words, a lot of it is about confirming that a problem exists, that people are dealing with a shared reality and not just having unrelated personal difficulties, establishing that they can trust one another to discuss what might be difficult things to talk about, and establishing a vocabulary for talking about the problem — so that individuals have a better understanding of their situation and are able to choose what to do individually on the basis of others' situations too.

I'm demanding language be accurate so we can discuss problems precisely and work with them, while you are suggesting we sacrifice accurate language in order that we may fight the problem through the language itself.

Insisting that the problem be talked about in one particular vocabulary — that your language is "accurate" and the other person's language "sacrifices accuracy" — doesn't sound like the sort of thing that would help solve problems of this sort.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 12 March 2013 05:57:42AM 0 points [-]

Hold off on proposing solutions.

I'm not sure where you got the idea I was proposing a solution. I'm just pointing out that I think the current terminology is not accurate in terms of mechanism, and suggesting that we use terminology that better reflects the underlying mechanism (if I'm correct that it does not). Admittedly, that is a question in itself -- and in that sense I suppose I am proposing a solution to that particular subproblem -- but I make no claim that better terminology will somehow solve the ultimate problems feminism fights. Rather I'm suggesting we be clear on what's going on first (and use terminology that reflects that); that suggests far away from proposing solutions.

Insisting that the problem be talked about in one particular vocabulary — that your language is "accurate" and the other person's language "sacrifices accuracy" — doesn't sound like the sort of thing that would help solve problems of this sort.

I'm not really sure what to make of this statement. Some terminology is better than other terminology. Either what I'm suggesting more accurately reflects the situation, or it doesn't. Maybe I'm right or maybe I'm wrong, but that the question of which terminology is better is a question that can be discussed is something that should be uncontroversial.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit