Making a virtue of cowardice
The Fawcett Society is continuing the “who can possibly know what to think in such a complicated disagreement??” approach. If they’re going to go that route in spite of everything, why are they even the Fawcett Society? Why aren’t they the Everybody Society? Being a feminist society is taking a position, it’s not throwing up one’s hands and saying “You’re both wrong and you should both apologize and start over.” Feminism isn’t about splitting the difference.
Ah yes “mediation.” Let’s force “mediation” between the aggressor and the target; let’s split the difference between the bully and the victim; let’s say “you’re both wrong” instead of paying attention to the reality; let’s say “good people on both sides” and see what happens.
But…I’m pretty sure feminism had too much to drink, and went places it shouldn’t go. It was probably dressed provocatively, and was walking alone after dark in a dangerous area of the internet. It should have stayed home, bought a dog to protect it, and dressed modestly if it had to go out for something. And it should never, ever, ever leave the house without some masculine presence…and, of course, permission. Feminism was asking for it.
Yeah. Very familiar arguments.
Can “bothsidesism” be misused or abused, to unfairly criticize people who are genuinely trying to understand an issue or taking a sensible middle position? Sure. But pretty much all arguments and labels can be misused or abused.
It is absolutely useful to have a shorthand term to describe those people who hear two people arguing whether 2 +2 = 4 or 6, and declare that they’re both being extreme and dogmatic and that the answer must be somewhere in between the two.
This is also what most CRT writings seem to be talking about when they refer to “objectivity” as a white-supremacist tool; the notion that we have to give the Neo-Nazi and the Neo-Confederate’s views a fair airing before rationally deciding to find a middle point between their position and actual racial justice.