I did a Sociology A Level. I was awful at Sociology and only did it to balance out my other, more creative subjects. I was so bad that in my first exam I got a U. I did so badly that after the papers were upgraded (when one student complained and her marks were adjusted) I was upgraded to a slightly better U. I ended up with a B overall, and instantly forgot 99% of what I had learned once I finished the exam but one, vague idea stuck with me. The idea that there are several viewpoints held on what caused the ills of society, all with evidence and convincing academic papers written on them. From one baseline of 'Poverty exists, this is bad' (stop me if I'm getting too technical) there were dozens of conflicting reasons as to why Poverty existed and how to solve it. It struck 17 year old me that in that case, Sociology was bollocks as no one could agree on anything except the baseline.
This idea strikes me now with the expansion of progressive movements within equal rights causes. The baseline is always something that most sane people agree with; women deserve equal rights; people's sexualities shouldn't mean they are discriminated against, ditto genders and gender fluidity; racism is bad, m'kay. The arguments should be taken to people who disagree with those basic truths. Instead, no one can agree with anything above the baseline. We agree that sexism is wrong, but there are clearly wide definitions of what is sexist. What is a joke to one person is an insult to another. Same with any form of discrimination. There always seems to be be infighting.
The end result is that the basic causes are harmed and held back. Anyone have any solutions?