Just finished a book by philosopher Michèle Le Dœuff in which she dissects at one point a contradiction that often raises its head when people demand social change: the issue is dismissed as simultaneously too big and consequential to allow change, and too small and inconsequential to deserve change. I’m sure modern examples can be found but the one she gives is when 1970s French feminists wanted to have the national motto Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité changed to Liberté, Égalité, Solidarité so as not to have the word “brotherhood” in there. They were told changing the national motto is impossible due to its prominence and historical weight, but also that this is a trivial concern and don’t feminists have more important fights than nitpicking over a word? Le Dœuff’s rebuttal is “Either this matter is big and significant, and therefore it’s imperative to change it to reflect more egalitarian values, or it’s small and insignificant, and therefore it costs nothing to change it to reflect more egalitarian values.”