Ambitious Women and Other Insults

Several years ago Sarah Godlewski led the effort to defeat a measure that would have abolished the state Treasurer’s office. Then she ran for that office and won. Then, last year, she was one of four serious contenders for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate. 

In any plain reading of that record a serviceable word to describe Godlewski would be ambitious. But when I used that word to describe her in a blog last month I got criticized by some readers, on social media and in another publication for being sexist. 

Now, I write commentary. I’m often trying to be provocative and so I’m used to taking criticism for things that I know will be controversial. But I have to admit that I didn’t see this one coming. 

For one thing, I think that being ambitious is a good thing, so long as it’s tempered with other personal traits, like empathy and a concern for the greater good, values that I think Godlewski possesses. So, to the extent that I gave this common word any thought at all, I meant it as a compliment. 

But it didn’t matter what my intention was. I had become an unwitting participant in one of the games of the victimhood olympics. This competition can be thought of as semantic gotcha in which people are called out for saying or writing things they had no idea were offensive to anybody. 

Liberal language enforcers argue that it’s not my intent that matters, but how the word was received by the person being described. There’s two problems with that. The first is that that’s not so clear. Take, for example, what happened a few years ago when a Black security guard at a Madison high school used a deeply offensive word to describe a young Black man who he was trying to correct. In that context – an older Black man disciplining a younger Black man – use of that word is common and most Black people would find it acceptable. 

So, the same word that would be offensive if I were to use it in any context was not offensive when used by that man in that situation. Yet, the Madison school district nonsensically enforced its zero tolerance policy and the security guard was fired. Outrage ensued and the guard was ultimately reinstated. So, intention does matter. 

The second problem with semantic gotcha is that, for most of us, it’s just off putting. My reaction to being accused of sexism for using a perfectly fine word in perfectly accurate way could be summed up as, oh for cryin’ out loud, what’ll it be next? It didn’t prompt reflection. It prompted irritation. I guess I’m just not evolved enough, but that puts me in the company of most Americans. 

In a recent piece in the New York Times, liberal columnist Nicholas Kristof put it succinctly when he wrote, “While this new terminology is meant to be inclusive, it bewilders and alienates millions of Americans. It creates an in-group of educated elites fluent in terms like BIPOC and A.A.P.I. and a larger out-group of baffled and offended voters, expanding the gulf between well-educated liberals and the 62 percent majority of Americans who lack a bachelor’s degree — which is why Republicans like Ron DeSantis have seized upon all things woke.”

And when Stanford published a long list of words that should be avoided, Times liberal columnist Pamela Paul mocked it by writing, “Yet when in life is it more appropriate for people to take risks than in college — to test out ideas and encounter other points of view? College students should be encouraged to use their voices and colleges to let them be heard. It’s nearly impossible to do this while mastering speech codes, especially when the master lists employ a kind of tribal knowledge known only to their guru creators. A normal person of any age may have trouble submitting, let alone remembering that “African American” is not just discouraged but verboten, that he or she can’t refer to a professor’s “walk-in” hours or call for a brown bag lunch, powwow or stand-up meeting with their peers. “You can’t say that” should not be the common refrain.” All of the words in italics were suggested to be off limits by Stanford. 

Look, language evolves. Words and phrases that were acceptable twenty years ago aren’t any more and new language becomes the norm. I remember when “Ms.” was a big deal. Now it’s what you call an adult woman. Or at least it was until somebody decides that it’s offensively gender specific. 

My point isn’t that there is no such thing as offensive language that should be avoided, but rather that obsessively seeking it out is counter-productive. It makes villains out of well-meaning people and drives them away from your cause. 

Is it too much to ask that we start with the assumption that, in all but very rare cases, the speaker intended no harm? Is it too much to ask that we appreciate the context of the word? And, when it comes to inventing new words and phrases, could we do it in a way that doesn’t bewilder most people? In short, can we extend to people the grace to speak plainly and honestly without the fear of stepping on a culture wars land mine? Or is that too ambitious? 

Have a good weekend.