Last week Time magazine did something really weird. In a jokey, chummy online feature called which word should be banned in 2015? Time somehow found itself nominating the word feminist for banning. This was a spectacularly dumb idea. Some people — rather a lot, actually — consider themselves feminists. It is a part of their identity, basic to who they are. Suggesting a ban on use of the term is awfully close to suggesting a ban on those people. Its hard to see much humor in that. Or the point Time magazine was trying to make. I cant even... has become a Twitter cliche, said Time magazine in the same feature. Okay, thats kind of annoying. And feminist is now in the same category? Along with previous castoffs OMG, YOLO and twerk? And this suggestion is somehow light hearted? Havent we had enough of the term feminist... is not that different from nominating libertarian or Mexican or Buddhist as candidates for banning. How can do you do that as a mass-market magazine that is supposed to be for the entire news-reading public? Heres the nomination speech Time wrote for its proposed ban. Its supposed to mimic the thinking of a person who would want the term stricken. You have nothing against feminism itself, but when did it become a thing that every celebrity had to state their position on whether this word applies to them, like some politician declaring a party? Let’s stick to the issues and quit throwing this label around like ticker tape at a Susan B. Anthony parade. As soon as I read that four days ago I knew Time was going to end up apologizing. It was just a question of how long it would take the egos involved to relinquish their hold. Well, it happened. Heres the editors note: TIME apologizes for the execution of this poll; the word ‘feminist’ should not have been included in a list of words to ban. While we meant to invite debate about some ways the word was used this year, that nuance was lost, and we regret that its inclusion has become a distraction from the important debate over equality and justice. So suggesting a ban on the word feminist was supposed to trigger debate, through some nuance that got lost somehow? The logic gets more mystifying the more they talk about it. Its easy to say, its hard to know what they were thinking. But it really is hard. Do you know? I may end up writing about this at my site, PressThink, so I ask for a reason. Heres the one idea I have so far: the key to understanding how they got there is in the fake-familiar conversational tone of the writing, which posits the existence of common world or taken-for-grantedness that does not exist— in effect a phony we that Time editors mistook for an actual community of people who share annoyances.
Posted on: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 19:26:15 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015