Ha, never would I imagine Foucault being mentioned here, but you are right, it's highly relevant to the discussions here.
"
People know what they do; frequently they know why they do what they do; but what they don't know is what what they do does.”
― Michel Foucault
And that is why intentions don't matter, the the implicit is more dangerous than the explicit as it allows for problematic actions to be 'easy' or 'unchallenged'. Though ironically, I'd still see this act as more 'explicit' relative to other things in the context of the response, even though it may be more 'implicit' to those engrained in internet culture/those that participate in the 'meme'.
For more accessible writing on the same topic, Stuart Hall is great. Relevant is his discussions of intertexuality: "Accumulation of meanings across different texts, where one image refers to another, or has its meaning altered by being 'read' in the context of other images". Once again, actions don't exist in a vacuum. We must examine context (gendered violence, sexist discourses) to see impact of an action/what an action does. Counter arguments state that "FHRIP" was only intended for its shock value and disruption, but why does this statement cause shock? Why does it elicit at the same time laughter? I think it was actually Foucault that suggests laughter/what we find funny as a good starting point for analyzing social control.
------
“We have to be there at the birth of ideas, the bursting outward of their force: not in books expressing them, but in events manifesting this force, in struggles carried on around ideas, for or against them.”
― Michel Foucault
Unfortunately, I am also more cynical about this being the 'tide that was held back for decades'. I see it more as appropriation at best of these forces. It's important to address this matter ... but it also individualizes sexism. The culprit is seen as without versus within. Fire the guy, absolve ourselves of sexism .. instead of addressing gendered wage disparities within the organizations, how the impact of utility costs disproportionately affect women, in the case of MLSE - the impact of their business model in relation to accessibility of sports/support of 'circuses' over bread and so forth. As much as I wouldn't shed much tears at the firing of the guy, I also don't think it can be understood as a great feminist act that breaks down sexism and gendered violence.
Originally Posted by JonO
RPB Membership Team
. In the meantime, we react to what's in front of us and try to stay moving in the right direction. Sure, it would be better if the reaction took in wage disparities (or even just opportunities - the guy in question here is an engineer, my wife received an engineering degree in the 80s and change is sloooow) but as the saying goes, perfect is the enemy of good. Just because the response wasn't the perfect one, maybe we shouldn't be too cynical about it. I think we have to be careful, because there is a lot of, "be patient" for change in that and what that really means is, "we're not going to change."
