This weekend I read many social media posts about
“whataboutism.” The term caught my eye because it seemed so interesting. And it
seemed an insult. I figured it meant people asking “what about that?” but I
didn’t have much clue.
Whataboutism gives a clue to its meaning in its name.
It is not merely the changing of a subject (“What about the economy?”) to
deflect away from an earlier subject as a political strategy; it’s essentially
a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just
as egregious or worse than what the original party was accused of doing,
however unconnected the offenses may be.
Upon first reading another explanation, I
concluded this was a red herring in logic — or distracting one’s opponent
from the issue at hand. But it’s a “you too” or tu qouque logical
fallacy. The opponent says that you are guilty of the same crime instead of
validating whether the first claim is true or not.
This circular logic is dizzying and confusing.
Now the term makes sense to me in the context of US
politics. Some are accusing Antifa and Black Lives Matters protestors of
similar conduct as the Stop the Steal protestors. Essentially, people are
pointing their fingers at each other.
In my humble opinion, protests turn too easily to riots
because bad actors generally appear at some point. Personally, I deliberate for
hours until I post my opinion on social media.
I wrote about this topic previously but added more content here.
Representative Emanuel
Cleaver II opened the 117th Congress session with a controversial end
to his prayer: “amen and a woman.” Cleaver meant it as a pun to illustrate the
current high number of female members of Congress. His intent seems good,
though his timing may seem sacrilegious and inappropriate to some.
Others on social media aired their grievances about
Cleaver’s pun. For example, conservative commentator Ben
Shapiro tweeted:
“Amen” is a Biblical Hebrew word: אמן. It is a word
simply meaning “may it be so.” It has nothing to do with the word “man” or
“woman” because it is FROM HEBREW. This is some of the dumbest s*** I have ever
seen in my life.
This incident illustrates the tension surrounding words and
gender politics. Even if intent may be honorable on both sides of an issue, a
war of words may still ensue over the definition narrowing and/or broadening of
gendered terms.
What do you think about Cleaver's pun on amen?
The Faux Pas
I experienced similar tension during a college class over
the Star Trek introduction. In the first few months of my
marriage to a Trekkie, my husband and I watched the original Star Trek where
I heard “To boldly go where no man has gone before” with every introduction.
During my Modern American Usage class the next semester, the
professor asked for examples of sexist or inclusive language.
“Where no man has gone before,” I said.
Suddenly two or three people in the class objected: “No,
it’s ‘where no one has gone before.’”
I cowered, but I knew I was right!
Well, I hadn’t watched Star Trek: Next Generation yet
where the creators had changed the introduction to inclusive language.
However, my example
with theirs showed the evolution of inclusive language from the 60s to
the 80s.
Has anyone ever called you out for sexist language? Have you ever called someone out for sexist language? How did the exchange go?
Generic Man
Over thousands of years, our language has narrowed generic
human nouns and pronouns into gender-specific nouns and pronouns (or vice
versa). Old English used wer to indicate an adult male, but
speakers replaced wer with man. The meaning ofmanmeant
male or female until AD 1000. But man retained the sense of
people for longer. The last original Star Trek introduction
(6/23/1969) and Neil Armstrong’s declaration on the moon “One small step for
man; one giant leap for mankind” (7/20/1969) illustrate this sense of people
until 1969.
Other terms that use man for the sense
people include mankind, manslaughter, manhandle,
etc. Mankind hasdeclined in usage over the past
200 years. Humankind seems to have replaced mankind in
some instances since 1960. Using Google Books Ngram, mankind usage
decreased in 1978 as humankind usage increased. Mankind has
a slight dip — mostly in the 90s — but it returns to the same percentage in
2019. Interestingly enough, mankind increased in the new Millennium. Humankind doesn’t
seem to have replaced mankind as of yet, and the term may never
do so.
The issue of gender-neutral versus gender-specific terms
encounters controversy because of potential discrimination based on sex,
religion, or political persuasion.
How do you feel about the changes in the House Ethic Rules?
Look at a Person’s Intentions
The changes in meaning and terms have been an underlying
issue in the culture wars for several decades. This tension will most likely
continue. But as it continues, we need to look at people’s intentions behind
their words. Like Cleaver and Shapiro, most of us have honorable intentions.
Thus, we can draw on our honorable intentions, instead of our desires to be
right or not offended, to reach compromises or to kindly disagree. Albeit not
everyone will do this, but you and I can choose to do this.
How can we approach each other with a "heart at peace" when addressing conflicts over language usage?
