Conversation

Replying to
I think the narrative here is fundamentally weaker. There is a central character (“woman”) and an energy (which shows up as takedowns of specific men, like Weinstein, or institutions), but no overall plot. The Tea Party had a story (constitutional originalism initially).
1
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
Replying to
And note, to take the NYT as an example, there’s been endless op-eds, exposes, coverage. The only thing missing has been a grand narrative. Without that, there’s no way to trace diff between the 2017 and 2018 other than stats of number of women running, number of men taken down
1
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
Replying to
In the absence of a natural story, the only thing people can do is keep some sort of score. Men taken down, seats won in Congress under a banner. #Occupy had the same problem. It’s why “movements” on the Left generally gain less traction than on the Right. Cf. Lakoff model
1
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
Replying to
For example, “equal rights” doesn’t work because it actually is not big enough. It contemplates a small change within the patriarchy. The very idea of “rights” would need to be refactored in a feminist way. What would “rights” mean if women ran the world?
1
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
Replying to
I personally think an unequal position for women is too deeply ingrained in the DNA/OS kernel of the current social order to be fixed with an “equal rights” limited mission. You do have to do a certain amount of reimagining of the whole thing. And now may be the time.
1
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more