I don’t mean to diminish the larger point you’re making about feminism not having middle ground, but from an interface design perspective, a dial very much implies a continuum of settings. When there isn’t middle ground, the interface should be a toggle switch instead.
Of course this is art, not a real device, so obviously a dial is appropriate because it’s a response to being told to “dial down,” not “switch off.”
(I almost feel like there could’ve been something different about the way the dial was depicted – maybe with a range with “raging feminist” next to “complicit” and something more extreme above it, or maybe indeed using a toggle instead of a dial – in order to emphasize that “raging feminist” already is as “dialed down” as you could reasonably ask for, but such UI realism would probably just clutter up the design without improving the message. As art, I think the artist got it right as-is.)
You’re not wrong. But I picture this dial to snap between two settings. Like ones that are used for on/off switches. Not like a continuous potentiometer type.
Instead of complaining that feminists speak out, why not call out the actual problem: the misogynists? Be a “staunch advocate” and have the conversations that women can’t.
“All men are fucking douchebags and should die” -> “if they already think I’m a douchebag and the other side will be nice to me…”
Don’t get me wrong, I understand that that’s an extreme but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen either. I’m not saying I agree really with either side and “turning down the feminism” is a kinda weird thing to say to your student but I have heard multiple different times of someone who saw how much they seemed to be hated and drifted to the right as they were accepted there (even if for the wrong reasons).
That’s true but if they are often confused even within their own circles, the type of men who would drift to the right from it are also unlikely to know the difference
I fully agree. This applies not only to feminism but in general - if you want to convince people about something, you need to plan your approach, what to say, know what works on people etc. You cannot just rage like crazy because there’s a high chance you just create a counter reaction.
F.e. I’d say we can all agree that gay rights are the right thing. But if you come to some conservative village, start shouting at everyone, being super aggresive and rage like a maniac, I’d bet that the only thing you achieve is that you’ll be labeled as “that crazy person”
I’m really surprised of the responses to this comment, I find this to be a common sense
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.”
Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I went to the Women’s Rights National Historical Park in Seneca Falls, NY, and of all the things that really struck me hard there (it was a lot) I think the biggest hit was realizing how fucking long it took between the start of mainstreaming the movement and women actually getting the vote. None of the women who started that movement lived long enough to cast their own vote.
There was no “women’s black panthers”. There was no threat of violence if women can’t control their own lives. Everybody got to pretty much just stay comfortable with their nice order. And change did. not. happen. For years.
Maybe the slow pace was worth it, I don’t know. I’m not a woman and I’m not much devoted to order. But it seems pretty clear that “avoid offending anybody” is not an effective tool for change.
Fair enough, good quote (btw I’m not from US so my knoledge here is limited). Although I’m not sure what portion I agree/disagree with it, I have to think about it much more.
But I mean, even MLK understood that there’s a limit, right? Like he didn’t take AK47 and started to murder all the racists he saw but have chosen rather strong but non violent approach and he thought about what he was saying and what “works”. And that’s all I’m saying, I’ve never said that you cannot take a strong stance. But if you turn it to 11 and just RAGE!!! then be prepared that you might not achieve anything or even make the situation worse
Let me say as I’ve always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I’m still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve. That in a real sense it is impracticable for the Negro to even think of mounting a violent revolution in the United States. So I will continue to condemn riots, and continue to say to my brothers and sisters that this is not the way. And continue to affirm that there is another way.
But at the same time, it is as necessary for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities as it is for me to condemn riots. I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.
-The Other America
And this was over The Long, Hot Summer of 1967 where neighborhoods literally got burned to the ground in riots and dozens of people were killed. Shooting your mouth off in response to someone being a bigot is a piddling offense by comparison.
Like, I’m not going to stand here and tell you it’s being on your best behavior. But neither is saying some bigoted shit to someone that causes them to pop off in return. Two people can be doing wrong things, and one can even be more at fault!
MLK didn’t; Malcom X did. MLK’s underlying message was ‘acknowledge my peaceful protest, or you get stuck with his less peaceful protest’. Peaceful protesting alone tends to get you a whole lot of nothing.
Edit: of course, most history classes seem to forget Malcom X even existed, because the ‘just peacefully protest over in that corner and don’t bother us, it will totally make us change our ways’ narrative is much more desirable for certain demographics.
Good for you. History disagrees with your disagreeing.
Look up Malcom X, the Black Panthers, and the Battle of Blair Mountain sometime. Pretty much every victory oppressed groups have won has had to draw blood in order to win the day.
You’re right if the goal is to convince someone of something. But why is it the job of the gay person to talk to the conservative village in “the right way” to justify their existence?
More generally, why is it always the oppressed who have to try to rationalize and normalize themselves for a chance at being accepted in what is also their society?
I have no room to speak since I’m not fighting any of those fights, but even I get infuriated thinking about people needing to talk rationally about why they should be accepted.
But why is it the job of the gay person to talk to the conservative village in “the right way” to justify their existence?
It isn’t, but we’re talking about arguing with idiots. I had some lengthy response prepared but I scraped that - bottom line is, what is your solution in such scenario then? (I mean the village scenario)
My solution is that you need to show people that they have nothing to fear, basically to bring them down to their senses. That’s standard negotiation/diplomacy. It’s unfair but that’s life, in ideal world we wouldn’t need to deal with this. And alternative for me is a tribal war of “us vs. them”, where you spark in people “this person is aggresive against me, this person is thus my enemy!” and then any logic or reason goes out of window.
Yeah I’m in the same boat with lengthy scrapped response. We’re at a point that’s demonstrated there is no solution to arguing with idiots, short of buying media outlets and correcting the narrative globally. People aren’t willing to be persuaded by discussion, even with their own families. It’s a signal-to-noise issue where the noise is all of the media propaganda that overpowers the signal of real world around them.
Being a gay ambassador isn’t going to change any minds when the recipient gets bombarded by hate speech 24/7 on their favorite news outlets. So I think people should just be themselves and society has a responsibility to fix itself.
I know it’s not a good answer, I don’t think anyone has one or there wouldn’t be a global rise in fascism. But it comes off as victim-blaming to put the responsibility on the oppressed, rather than the rest of society to fix it.
Removed by mod
That nice girl feminism got us to lose abortion rights. I’m in the vengeance stage whether you like it or not.
It really doesn’t. But it does make raging misogynists pissy and insecure.
The point of the dial is there is no middle ground. You either take it quietly or you’re a troublemaker.
I don’t mean to diminish the larger point you’re making about feminism not having middle ground, but from an interface design perspective, a dial very much implies a continuum of settings. When there isn’t middle ground, the interface should be a toggle switch instead.
Of course this is art, not a real device, so obviously a dial is appropriate because it’s a response to being told to “dial down,” not “switch off.”
(I almost feel like there could’ve been something different about the way the dial was depicted – maybe with a range with “raging feminist” next to “complicit” and something more extreme above it, or maybe indeed using a toggle instead of a dial – in order to emphasize that “raging feminist” already is as “dialed down” as you could reasonably ask for, but such UI realism would probably just clutter up the design without improving the message. As art, I think the artist got it right as-is.)
You’re not wrong. But I picture this dial to snap between two settings. Like ones that are used for on/off switches. Not like a continuous potentiometer type.
No, the point is that there really is no middle ground with these people.
Are you fucking high?!
Removed by mod
Is that reaction actually increasing the misogyny though? I kinda expect it’s just bringing out into the open what is already there tbh
Removed by mod
Instead of complaining that feminists speak out, why not call out the actual problem: the misogynists? Be a “staunch advocate” and have the conversations that women can’t.
“This rape would be going a lot better for you if you’d just stop struggling so much!”
Removed by mod
Imagine getting triggered by women not wanting to be assaulted
Immediately jumping to a rape analogy isn’t fair or apt, you can always make someone else’s argument appear dumb when you jump to an EXTREME
How dare I follow their argument to its logical conclusion
“All men are fucking douchebags and should die” -> “if they already think I’m a douchebag and the other side will be nice to me…”
Don’t get me wrong, I understand that that’s an extreme but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen either. I’m not saying I agree really with either side and “turning down the feminism” is a kinda weird thing to say to your student but I have heard multiple different times of someone who saw how much they seemed to be hated and drifted to the right as they were accepted there (even if for the wrong reasons).
I don’t think it’s feminism at that point. It’s misandry. I know many women who don’t understand the difference, but they’re not the same.
And we can see plenty of men here who are told what the difference is and ignore it to pursue their grievance.
That’s true but if they are often confused even within their own circles, the type of men who would drift to the right from it are also unlikely to know the difference
Removed by mod
This comes off weird. Especially when in context to the post.
I fully agree. This applies not only to feminism but in general - if you want to convince people about something, you need to plan your approach, what to say, know what works on people etc. You cannot just rage like crazy because there’s a high chance you just create a counter reaction.
F.e. I’d say we can all agree that gay rights are the right thing. But if you come to some conservative village, start shouting at everyone, being super aggresive and rage like a maniac, I’d bet that the only thing you achieve is that you’ll be labeled as “that crazy person”
I’m really surprised of the responses to this comment, I find this to be a common sense
-Martin Luther King Jr
Got a lot of the same vibes, really
Preach on.
I went to the Women’s Rights National Historical Park in Seneca Falls, NY, and of all the things that really struck me hard there (it was a lot) I think the biggest hit was realizing how fucking long it took between the start of mainstreaming the movement and women actually getting the vote. None of the women who started that movement lived long enough to cast their own vote.
There was no “women’s black panthers”. There was no threat of violence if women can’t control their own lives. Everybody got to pretty much just stay comfortable with their nice order. And change did. not. happen. For years.
Maybe the slow pace was worth it, I don’t know. I’m not a woman and I’m not much devoted to order. But it seems pretty clear that “avoid offending anybody” is not an effective tool for change.
Fair enough, good quote (btw I’m not from US so my knoledge here is limited). Although I’m not sure what portion I agree/disagree with it, I have to think about it much more.
But I mean, even MLK understood that there’s a limit, right? Like he didn’t take AK47 and started to murder all the racists he saw but have chosen rather strong but non violent approach and he thought about what he was saying and what “works”. And that’s all I’m saying, I’ve never said that you cannot take a strong stance. But if you turn it to 11 and just RAGE!!! then be prepared that you might not achieve anything or even make the situation worse
More MLK quotes!
-The Other America
And this was over The Long, Hot Summer of 1967 where neighborhoods literally got burned to the ground in riots and dozens of people were killed. Shooting your mouth off in response to someone being a bigot is a piddling offense by comparison.
Like, I’m not going to stand here and tell you it’s being on your best behavior. But neither is saying some bigoted shit to someone that causes them to pop off in return. Two people can be doing wrong things, and one can even be more at fault!
MLK didn’t; Malcom X did. MLK’s underlying message was ‘acknowledge my peaceful protest, or you get stuck with his less peaceful protest’. Peaceful protesting alone tends to get you a whole lot of nothing.
Edit: of course, most history classes seem to forget Malcom X even existed, because the ‘just peacefully protest over in that corner and don’t bother us, it will totally make us change our ways’ narrative is much more desirable for certain demographics.
I fundamentally disagree
Good for you. History disagrees with your disagreeing.
Look up Malcom X, the Black Panthers, and the Battle of Blair Mountain sometime. Pretty much every victory oppressed groups have won has had to draw blood in order to win the day.
The closer a person and the people they care about get to the chopping block the less common sense it seems.
You’re right if the goal is to convince someone of something. But why is it the job of the gay person to talk to the conservative village in “the right way” to justify their existence?
More generally, why is it always the oppressed who have to try to rationalize and normalize themselves for a chance at being accepted in what is also their society?
I have no room to speak since I’m not fighting any of those fights, but even I get infuriated thinking about people needing to talk rationally about why they should be accepted.
It isn’t, but we’re talking about arguing with idiots. I had some lengthy response prepared but I scraped that - bottom line is, what is your solution in such scenario then? (I mean the village scenario)
My solution is that you need to show people that they have nothing to fear, basically to bring them down to their senses. That’s standard negotiation/diplomacy. It’s unfair but that’s life, in ideal world we wouldn’t need to deal with this. And alternative for me is a tribal war of “us vs. them”, where you spark in people “this person is aggresive against me, this person is thus my enemy!” and then any logic or reason goes out of window.
But really, what is your solution?
Yeah I’m in the same boat with lengthy scrapped response. We’re at a point that’s demonstrated there is no solution to arguing with idiots, short of buying media outlets and correcting the narrative globally. People aren’t willing to be persuaded by discussion, even with their own families. It’s a signal-to-noise issue where the noise is all of the media propaganda that overpowers the signal of real world around them.
Being a gay ambassador isn’t going to change any minds when the recipient gets bombarded by hate speech 24/7 on their favorite news outlets. So I think people should just be themselves and society has a responsibility to fix itself.
I know it’s not a good answer, I don’t think anyone has one or there wouldn’t be a global rise in fascism. But it comes off as victim-blaming to put the responsibility on the oppressed, rather than the rest of society to fix it.