THE concept of "mainstream feminism" was recently explained by an intellectual and black revolutionary, Angela Davis. In this short talk she does not belittle feminism but explains the degree to which those in power (corporate power) exploit 'feminism' while conveniently ignoring the biggest victims of vulgar/violent sexism -- something which those privileged millionaires never encountered themselves.
I've spent my entire life fighting against injustices, including racial and gender-related injustices (there are now more aspects to the latter -- more than a binary sex criteria). What's really frustrating to me is seeing how corporate media and its corporate masters exploit if not hijack social liberation movements to pursue their own goals which are inherently racist (like bombing countries whose citizens are presumed 'barbaric', collectively, and that includes bombing women). Look up the number of times Microsoft was sued for sexism -- an issue that goes all the way up to their tactless CEO (maybe he doesn't even know what sexism is because the standards in his country of birth are appallingly low for women).
Hiring for diversity does not ensure not getting some idiot like Nadella speaking for a company
"Normalising gore and subjugation, or even child rape in the case of Columbus, isn't worth is; it's just not worth defending anymore."Removal of metal figures may seem pointless and misguided. But I am not opposing that; I think some of these statues can be relocated to somewhere indoors (not necessarily destroyed; there may be some historical value). Their pedestals and monuments can have erected upon them characters more suitable for our times and our fabric of society (which is more racially diverse and more 'woke' regarding human rights aspects). That's OK.
Over a year ago Python came under shake-down (or shake-up) because people opposed the use of "slave" as a metaphor in technology. The attempt to remove the word was probably more controversial than the metaphor itself. Guido van Rossum, who started the whole language, stepped down and shortly later retired (somewhat early) from his job. One GNU developer told me he had shown signs of racism in the past (in effect blacklisting her because she spoke about discrimination against black people). We really don't know why Guido left, with a vacuum Google and Microsoft were happy to fill. One can only make guesses; it might be a combination of factors, but certainly the atmosphere in Python was beginning to change. PyCon is being 'bought' by Microsoft each year.
"So, in conclusion, I don't oppose making society and language more civilised; but it's starting to look to me like, at least for some people, the real goal isn't manners; the goal it to 'cancel' generally acceptable people based on a moving goalpost of speech standards."When people began opposing the term "master" in isolation (in unrelated contexts this word is extremely common, e.g. "master track", "Masters degree", masterpiece") I thought this initially well-meaning campaign had gone a little too far. Then I found out about "whitelist" and "blacklist" and all sorts of other things. Black and white are more than skin colours; one represents absence of light and the latter complete saturation thereof. Nothing inherently racist about photon science, right?
So, in conclusion, I don't oppose making society and language more civilised; but it's starting to look to me like, at least for some people, the real goal isn't manners; the goal it to 'cancel' generally acceptable people based on a moving goalpost of speech standards. If some developer you dislike doesn't accept gay people, s/he is gone. If s/he accepts gay people but not gay marriage (matrimony), same fate? Then you get into the whole dimension of cross-gender and other things. And it doesn't seem to matter if these people's religion actually says those things are forbidden; suddenly we don't even honour people's freedom of religion (or faith). What does that mean to free speech and tolerance and inclusion etc. if we cannot tolerate and include some people's religion (in its original form)? There's of course a correlation between religions and races, so the same can usually be said in the context of racism. For instance, if you dislike women because your religion (tied to a race) says so, is it racist to make you an outcast? These disputes can never end or can never please everyone. Meanwhile they serve to distract from social movements like the antiwar movement, financial justice and so on (which affect all races and genders and outlast activists for millennia). Those issues transcend some of the superficialities that divide us (while media pours in the gasoline).
"We ought to think bigger and strive higher. Let's put an end to racism and chauvinism in all its form, including the corporate form."If all seemingly racist (and dead) people were removal from pedestals and our language was 'sanitised' to comply with some Code of Conduct, racism would likely remain, albeit closeted, and women would still be bombed (whilst expressing opposition to that would be construed as "rude" and "unprofessional"... because "you're being paid" so "be nice!").
We ought to think bigger and strive higher. Let's put an end to racism and chauvinism in all its form, including the corporate form. ⬆