It is not Shaming Language if it Does Not Shame You
You know, there has always been something about the phrase “shaming
language” that bugged me. And at long last I have figured it out.
You see, shaming language is meant to inflict shame. Correct? So if it does not actually inflict shame, then it is not “shaming”. . . is it? It has failed in its purpose, hasn't it?
The best way to handle “shaming language” is to not experience shame when somebody directs it at you. If you do not feel ashamed, then the language has failed to shame you. And so, ipso facto, it cannot be “shaming" language at all, can it?
Also, the phrase "shaming language" suggests that anybody directing such language at you has the power or the authority to shame you in the first place. And would you willingly grant such a power or such an authority to just anybody?
So why not nip this whole business in the bud? Instead of calling it "shaming language", how about simply calling it ridicule or slander?
You see, shaming language is meant to inflict shame. Correct? So if it does not actually inflict shame, then it is not “shaming”. . . is it? It has failed in its purpose, hasn't it?
The best way to handle “shaming language” is to not experience shame when somebody directs it at you. If you do not feel ashamed, then the language has failed to shame you. And so, ipso facto, it cannot be “shaming" language at all, can it?
Also, the phrase "shaming language" suggests that anybody directing such language at you has the power or the authority to shame you in the first place. And would you willingly grant such a power or such an authority to just anybody?
So why not nip this whole business in the bud? Instead of calling it "shaming language", how about simply calling it ridicule or slander?
posted by Fidelbogen at 2:05 PM
2 Comments:
"So why not nip this whole business in the bud? Instead of calling it "shaming language", how about simply calling it ridicule or slander?"
Because it's not just a label or a statement of offense. It's also an admonishment and a teaching opportunity, neither of which should be neglected.
Shaming begins in the home, with your mother, sisters, aunts, mothers of your friends, etc, thus you are conditioned early to keep quiet and fail to see it as an attack when it is an attack, as abnormal, as generally, dishonest, even when the object has actually done something literally shameful, shaming is mere veiled aggression and manipulation, and should always be recognized as such. I do not offer disagreement then with the call to recognize shaming as unwarranted ridicule and slander. It only rarely is not, if ever.
In a previous entry Fidelbogen suggests not arguing with the ideologue, simply tell them how it is, or what you think, and leave it at that. I believe this includes calling out shaming tactics, but not troubling oneself to argue any points so dishonestly and manipulatively introduced. In this sense I agree with a poster above, it's a teaching opportunity, in the sense it is an informing opportunity, as long as no significant breath, effort or time is wasted on the ideologue. I also don't go try to have an argument with members of the Westboro Baptist Church as the litter the roadside with themselves and their signs, as fanatics, they would love nothing better than to spend their time doing that, and stealing your time from you, as would any feminism styled robotic organism.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home