Talking of utopias. This is possibly off-topic but a phrase I encounter quite often in lefty discourse, and almost never in its right-leaning counterpart, is 'not helpful'. As in, 'X made the following intervention in the Labour leadership debate; this should be condemned, as characterising X as Y is not helpful.'
I find 'not helpful' a really intriguing turn of phrase for a criticism - and it's always a criticism. It's a turn of phrase that gets used a lot in contexts where there is a lofty goal that everyone is assumed to be striving for but there's disagreement about how the goal is to be achieved. It implies that both the critic and the object of criticism have the same goals, but that the one being criticised is doing it wrong or - intentionally or not - somehow obstructing those shared goals.
Usually 'X is not helpful' means 'I don't like what you did or said' but it's framed in such a way as to suggest that by doing or saying X someone has fallen short of the whole lofty goal, rather than just annoying the person doing the criticising.
I realise this is a bit of a digression. But we've all become very sensitised to certain specific ways in which language articulates power and oppression, particularly around discriminatory treatment of minority groups. I think sometimes we hyper-focus on those (ab)uses of language to the extent that it creates blind spots elsewhere. I'm musing out loud a bit here, but I think what I'm poking at is my suspicion that trying to 'call out' linguistic uses and abuses of power does nothing to remedy those abuses, because they just move elsewhere and develop new protective camouflage. This has certainly been borne out by my personal experience (I'm a survivor of all kinds of anarchistic/communistic/women-only/collaborative social experiments during my twenties, most of which disintegrated into the noisiest and most vicious infighting imaginable). So with all that in mind I find myself exasperated by the business of 'calling out' supposedly discriminatory language, because not only do I see it as a waste of time (because the real bastards will just find new ways of encoding their bastardry) but also it becomes a new and unpleasant orthodoxy that brings its own forms of discrimination and easily-abused power.
So I suppose this is all a roundabout way of saying I have some difficulties with the 'structural analysis' approach to feminism as to other 'social justice' themes. Not because I disagree with the analyses necessarily, but because they seem often to lead, in practice, to a hyper-focus on language that serves, in my experience, more often to obscure than to reveal and eliminate abuses of power. As I've got older, I've concluded that really quite old-fashioned theories of human nature and interaction (imperfect, imperfectible, prone to outbursts of utter dickishness as well as flights of glory) make much more sense and, in the long run, do more to promote tolerance and courtesy. Slightly to my surprise I discovered that this left me in many respects more in sympathy, philosophically speaking, with The Spectator than with The Guardian.