“You can’t say anything these days…

[CurlewKate]

Yes you can. Just don’t say racist, homophobic, ablist, misogynist things!

I so agree.

I particularly find this amusing when men say it about women in the workplace, especially their version, "you can't say anything nice these days". I routinely respond with some version of, "Funny, the vast bulk of men don't seem to have this problem. I've had a dozen perfectly pleasant, friendly, informal conversations with men in the office this week alone. Why do you think you find it so difficult to know what to say?"

Not quite int he same group but there was a phase a few years ago where it felt every second man I met socially would say some versio of, "Oh, the new boss is a woman, she only got the job because she's a woman and she's just terrible. I'm all for women getting leadership roles but to get it just because she's a women is bad for the business" to which I used to reply (with an MN head tilt and all): "Interesting. So you have never had a male boss or colleague who was promoted when he wasn't competent because he was just better at schmoozing? Really?"

I disagree. Many bad ideas have been exalted as virtuous and many good ideas stigmatised through the ages.

The idea that there’s an easily knowable correct set of views (to hold or avoid), that it’s the set the speaker holds now, and that only an “ist” would deviate from them is dangerous.

The people it most hurts are those outside the discourse-setting elite.

That’s interesting, @evelynevelynbut I don’t quite understand. What sort of things are you talking about? (With careful use of asterisks!)

Honestly, that's a load of bollocks.

It is absolutely true that what we recognise as misogyism today would not have been considered a big deal 30 years ago - ie that norms change. That doesn't mean that it's difficult to recognise it today, and adapt accordingly.

OK - please give an example of where you hold a view that would be considered dangerous or uncomfortable to many. Is that because you are an "-ist"?

(If you can't think of any examples, do you think it's more likely that: a) that's because after millennia of getting it wrong the orthodoxy has finally aligned on the correct views and they happen to be yours, or b) it's a mix of good and bad ideas in our age too, but they all seem correct to you because you aren't thinking them out for yourself).

Your posts are very difficult to understand.

I don't have any views (I hope) that are dangerous or uncomfortable to many, or that would put me in the "ist" group of any sort.

But I don't think that's because the orthodoxy has finally aligned on the correct views, that happen to be mine. But it absolutely is because today, at this point, these are what we consider to be the the appropriate and correct views. And I don't believe it's that hard for your average person to understand that.

It's entirely possible that in due course, particular views I hold today WILL be considered to be terribly backward and "ist". But I would hope that as our society and culture evolves, I would evolve with it. Or, shoudl this happen long after I'm dead, that those generations would look back and understand the context.

I think not allowing women to vote was an abhorrent and ridiculous rule. I can look at history and see that for many people, it was just the norm and how things were in those days. Which is why women had to fight to change it. Today, in western civilisations, the idea that women should have the vote is more or less universally acknowledged. Perhaps in 100 years they'll look back on current voting age or other criteria and be horrified? Who knows.

Well, the view that trans women are women is considered misogynistic in some circles, and the opposite view is considered transphobic (and misogynistic) in others. There's not one single orthodoxy that's unfailingly right. The idea that if someone expresses a view that's taboo it's because they are wilfully choosing to be an "-ist" (with the implication that they know they are wrong and they persist because they are bad) is dangerous.

It's a very common human failing. We might think of Catholic Ireland or any of a million other examples. That should make us humble in the present in case we are doing the same thing too.

My response to that is “YOU can’t. Normal, reasonable people can.”

We have two blokes in the office who do ‘love’ ‘sweetheart’ type speech. One is a solid, salt-of-the-earth bloke who has our backs and respects us. The other is a misogynist twat. Only one of them gets complaints. And he says, “can’t say anything” frequently.

@MattCauthon To make sure we're not discussing at cross purposes, could you clarify which bit(s) of my first post you thought was bollocks? As I don't want to assume we disagree on things we might not do. As you seem to recognise that the orthodoxy can be wrong and that you (and I'd include myself too) may well be wrong with it.

Sure. But becuase this one hasn't really got to a single point yet, I suspect that's not the sort of thing the OP meant? I mean, I am 100% NOT a TWAW person. I have huge issues with the TWAW crowd. I would not consider it inappropriate for someone who IS in the TWAW crowd to say something - currently, our society is still working on what will be the norm on this.

We're a bit closer with the supreme court ruling, but I don't think it's anywhere near the "well, you just can't say anything" these days sort of level [although I concede it did sort of feel like we were heading that way for a while, now I think about it! But even then, I disagreed with the TWAW rhetoric, but if I chose to disagree publically, I knew perfectly well what I was potentially getting myself into. There was no confusion on my part.]

It always amuses me when people bleat on about not being able to say anything...

Yes they can.

Nobody has stapled their lips together.

What people can't do is be the only person who gets to say what they think.

Give an opinion and get an opinion right back.

Nobody has the right to be unchallenged on their expressed views. That's what they hate. Consequences. Replies.

@MattCauthon That’s interesting. I also felt we were getting to an orthodoxy on TWAW (and in my view the wrong one).

Having people sincerely disagree is fine (necessary even). The corrosive thing is thinking that things are actually fairly simple and anyone who differs only has themselves to blame.

That seemed to me to be the subtext of the OP’s post, and I think it makes it more likely that we go wrong as a society not less.