I understand that attacking the motivations of your interlocutor is a common practice for SJ dialog, but in this case I don’t feel it applies, and I’d rather have a more constructive dialog as if I’m located somewhere else on the SJ attack wheel. Some of your reply doesn’t feel as if it’s in good faith, but I’ll respond as if it is, because there are certainly some ideas in it I’d like to converse about.
The future is unknown, but I look forward to helping build it within this new religion of social justice. I do not have a problem with calling it a religion, but it is flexible and continues to evolve.
I don’t either! I honestly think it’s a better direction for the SJ folks to go with it.
I think reframing it as a religion, and more than that, the world’s first secular crowdsourced one, actually gives Social Justice a lot more room to work its indoctrinations out than simply brewing it up from Critical Theory and such. It would also get to add “freedom of religion” to its tools.
I do think, though, that there are a lot of schisms and contradictions inside the current SJ indoctrination paradigm that need to get ironed out, and quick, or the whole thing is going to fall apart. You’re seeing it right now with the BLM Women’s March versus the Jewish Women’s March. You see it with the Trans Activists versus the Radfems. Some of the indoctrinations within it are very conflicting, and at odds with each other. Especially with the current gender self-identification stuff.
There’s a popular version of the definition of “transphobia” within SJ circles that states that denying a trans person’s gender identity is transphobic.
If a pre-op trans woman (identifies as a woman, has a penis) approaches a lesbian for an intimate relationship, and the lesbian denies the trans woman on the basis that she has a penis, then that lesbian is by letter “transphobic,” and guilty of denying the trans woman’s identity, and such.
This is not a result that many lesbians are going to like.
Should a battered women’s home be required to admit people born men but who identify as women? By the letter of the current gender self-identification frame, yes.
This is not a result that many feminists are going to like. Radfems are quite vocal about this one.
There’s also a lot of friction I’ve seen within the gay community about gender transitioning high schoolers. Five years ago, if a boy decided he was a girl, and the parents shot the boy full of hormones and prepared him for surgery, that would have been considered child abuse. There are now elements within SJ that would consider it child abuse to not do this. But that raises the question, what if he’s just gay? Pushing him to transition would be a tremendous mistake, from the position of the gay community.
The underlying narrative that gender is a social construct heavily undermines one of the key fixtures of the push for gay marriage. Namely that gay people were born that way. I firmly believe gay people are born that way, and think it is the strongest overall case for gay marriage, but if gender itself is a social construct then maybe the Mike Pence “pray the gay away” camps work. Also not popular with the gay community. (note: there are other cases for gay marriage which are also strong)
I’m aware of several gay social media groups who have gathered privately to express these concerns, because their members don’t feel they can express them publicly without being excommunicated.
These are the sorts of things that SJ is going to have to iron out, and is going to have a tremendously difficult time doing so within their current framework, because they’ve painted themselves into a corner. If, however, they adopted the mantra that the whole thing is a crowdsourced religion, it opens an easy solution, and one we’ve seen before. Gather together in a modern version of the First Council of Nicaea or Council of Trent, and decide which teachings are canonical and which are apocrypha.
That’s the greatest feature of a secular crowdsourced religion. You get to pick your indoctrinations.
Such a process would allow SJ to plug these holes. If they could come to a clarification on whether it’s okay to be racist to white people or sexist to men, that’d be a bonus, and would help SJ evangelize. (depending on what they decide)
As idealistic and unattainable as it may seem, don’t you at least wonder what a matriarchal society would look like instead of the thousand years of patriarchal society that has been our history? That is exciting to me, ancient words are not what paves the road to the future for me.
I find the idea of a meritocratic society, in which everyone regardless of gender contributes as best as they can in their own way, to be even more exciting, and expect that many of the positions of power in such a society would be populated by women. My cousin is a one star general in the Army, and she kicks ass. Very talented woman. My wife is a construction project manager, and also very good at what she does. But they didn’t get where they are today by buying into victimhood narratives, they got there on merit. I’m afraid that modern feminism may have lost some of that. As a former feminist, I recall a time when meritocracy wasn’t a dirty word.
I also think modern victimhood feminism may be pushing away successful women who did succeed based on merit. And that would be a huge loss for the feminists.