There are so many ways not to do that. It seems so simple, yet somehow, it proves elusive.
One way is:
If you disagree with a woman, or several women, don’t introduce your disagreement with that familiar Shakespeare tag “the lady doth protest too much.” That’s especially true if you are a man.
Let me explain. (Yes, of course it’s obvious; of course it shouldn’t need explanation; but apparently there are always people who profess not to understand.) There is no need for such a preamble. It is entirely normal to disagree with people by just disagreeing with them. There is no need for a preliminary throat-clearing in which you disparage whatever perceived group your object-of-criticism belongs to via an overused quotation from Shakespeare (or the bible or The Purpose-driven Life).
So, if you are American and your object is French, there is no need to start with a stale joke about The French before you get to the substance. If you are white and your object is not, it is unnecessary to begin with a joke about Other Races. The fact that you are disagreeing with someone from Group X will be clear enough without any introductory joke about Group X talking too much.
So it is with women. If you disagree with a woman, or several women, just disagree with them. Just get on with it. Don’t pause to say they talk too much first; just get on with it. Don’t try to frame the discussion as a matter of women talking too much by talking at all. Don’t try to locate yourself on higher ground by treating women who talk as needing a mild rebuke just for talking, before we even get to the actual disagreement.
I hope that’s clear? It seems very clear to me, but then I have a bias. I have a bias that tells me I get to talk, just like anyone else, and that I’m not doing anything weird or abnormal by talking, and that there is just no need to make stupid creaky is-this-1850 jokes about women talking, just because I talk. Not everyone has this bias, so what seems clear to me won’t seem clear to everyone.
I’ll explain a little more, just to make sure. I’m allowed to talk. Women are allowed to talk. We don’t need permission or approval; we get to do it, just as you do. Jokes about women talking too much are just as funny as jokes about blacks being lazy or Jews driving a hard bargain. They’re nasty ingroup jokes that are meant to keep marginalized people marginalized, and people with any sense don’t make them.
That’s how not to marginalize women, chapter 1.
I’m going to ruin it by saying this, but there was something deeply satisfying about getting to the end of the article and seeing, “No Comments.”
Way to fucking go. This is one of those things where, once I started watching for it, I saw everywhere. As soon as I started actually counting how often the women in the groups around me got interrupted while they were speaking, and compared it to how often the men did, I realized that it happened ALL the damned time.
It’s times like this that, as much as I despise the idea, I begin to understand anti-free speech and thought crime legislation. I can’t imagine the majority of people ever understanding the concept of privilege.
It’s deeply frustrating.
“Sticks and stones” plus a smiley face don’t make it any less so.
[head-desk]
The part that kills me about this sort of thing… I mean REALLY kills me…
Look, we live in a sexist, racist, classist (and so on) society where unconscious privilege is asserted constantly. We’re all occasionally guilty of it without thinking about it, especially when what we’re talking about isn’t directly or overtly related to the privilege at issue. It isn’t fine or good, but it happens and good people try to avoid it. Sometimes I see it and I comment on it, and sometimes I don’t depending on the context. I’m not perfect and I make mistakes and so does everyone else and making a mistake doesn’t make you a bad person, just not as good as you could be.
Anyways… what kills me is when someone jumps head-first into a sexist marginalizing strategy as their opening move while discussing sexism! It’s not like the conversation was about baking, it was about sexism and misogyny and from a purely tactical standpoint starting out with sexism is a bad play. It is hard not to assume that the person is either doing it intentionally, or that they are so deeply sexist that it slips out even when they’re actively trying to mask it, that they can’t even make it a quarter of the way through their comment without throwing in a little dig. Just nasty stuff.
Right? Every time that particular phrase comes up in conversation it’s almost NEVER in the context of “here’s this thing that Shakespeare wrote” and almost always in the context of “I think you’re wrong, and you’re a woman, and so I’m going to ‘cleverly’ link the two, oblivious to the implications of having done so”. Before I started becoming engaged with these kinds of issues it would just pass through my cognitive filters and I wouldn’t give it a second thought, and now that it’s been pointed out to me it almost enrages me when I hear it used.
… and they’re getting the meaning of the quote wrong too. Sexist AND dumb.
OK, I think I agree with everything said so far, up to #6. Two things just crack me up. When you say, “Let me explain”, I simply cannot help seeing before my inner eye the wacky landlord of Faulty Towers Inn silencing the poor Spanish help Manuel by poking a finger in his eye.
And secondly, when you say, “If you disagree with a woman, or several women, just disagree with them. Just get on with it. Don’t pause to say they talk too much first; just get on with it.” It’s also too meta, kind of like the Holy Handgrenade of Antioch: “To three shalst thou count”
Seriously, I do agree. Just let me wipe the tears off. BRB
Quite so about getting the Sxhpr quotation wrong. It’s like another much-bandied one from the same play – “To thine own self be true.” Both of them are packed with irony and ambiguity, yet they get trotted out as transparent literal bromides. It’s soooooo schewpid.
Gertrude says “the lady doth protest too much, methinks” about the character who stands for her in the internal play, who does indeed give a very rhetorical over-the-top speech about her eternal grief for her dead husband. The lines may have been added by Hamlet himself – he asks the players if he can add some lines, and we are never told which ones they are. Hamlet thinks his mother got over her grief way too quickly; the lines in the play reflect on her. Thus her line simply reeks of irony and ambiguity. It’s really not a sampler-lesson telling women to stfu.
I always follow “Let me explain” in my head with “No, it will take too long. Let me sum up.” in a Mandy Patinkin voice.
I can’t wait for the next parts!
It is obvious, and I fully agree with everything Opelia said.
But I must come clean and confess my sins: I did laugh at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I3qREbKqLw&feature=related
I couldn’t help it. Deep down I must be a chauvinistic pig. But I try to do better every day, I promise.
“Sticks and stones” and a smiley face. Not only do I find them unhelpful, I find them actively aggravating.
If the purpose of the smiley face is to say “I’m being sarcastic here, please don’t take this literally!”, that’s fine. In fact, that’s why emoticons were invented. But sometimes the purpose is to say “I’m saying something indefensible here, but if I frame it as a bit of a joke I can turn any criticism back on the critics for being humourless or being shrill.”
@BinJabreel says:
I too have witnessed women being rudely interrupted at meetings. Somehow, men think they always have an interesting and relevant point to make, whereas women’s contributions are effectively disposable.
This makes me extremely angry. Several times I have interrupted the interrupter and told them to shut the fuck up (not with those exact words, but with that exact meaning).
Nevertheless, I still feel that my attitude is chavinistic. It’s like being the knight in shing armour coming to the rescue of the damsel in distress. What I’d really like to see is for the woman in question to say: “I’m not finished yet. Please don’t interrupt me again”. It takes some guts, and it may cost them a fair bit of anxiety, but they must do it.
That’s why we loves the internets, preciousss – nobody can interrupt us here!!
@piero –
As you seem to understand, overcoming decades of cultural conditioning that says our voices aren’t as important or meaningful as men’s (and that it’s rude to interrupt people, even if they did it to you…) is really, really hard. We must do it, and indeed – many of us do, but almost paradoxically, the support of male colleagues is supremely helpful and appreciated in doing so. It’s helpful for many reasons, but perhaps the most salient is that backup from a man helps preempt the accusation of being “shrill” or “bitchy.” I know my words have value, and I will fight to say them if need be, but for example, I’ve been pretty effectively bullied out of it in situations where I know that being assertive in that way will be setting myself up as a target for more misogyny. Standing up for your female colleagues helps create an environment where they can stand up for themselves. As long as you’re not just doing it for Nice Guy (TM) points, which it doesn’t sound like you are, your instincts are good ones.
@daenyx:
No, I’m not doing to earn Nice Guys points. I just recognize the fact that many women are my intellectual superiors (Greta Christina, Danica McKellar, Helen Fisher and Ophelia spring readily to mind, but upon further reflection I could come with many more: Marie Curie, Gerge Sand, Hypatia, Françoise Sagan, Hannah Arendt, to name but a few.) I am interested in what any intelligent human being has to say, and intelligent women are usually interrupted by less than intelligent men. For me it is simply a matter of “value for money”: if I have to sit fot two hours at a meeting, I’d like to get the most of it. If a woman is making an interesting point and she is interrupted by one of the resident male apes, I get really incensed. But even if the woman is talking bullshit, I dislike her being interrupted by the resident ape just because he feels he can. I also care for manners.
You may think it is helpful for women to have the support of their male colleagues in such situations. I’d like to agree, but it just doesn’t feel right. What does feel right is for women to grow a thicker skin and stand their own ground. After all, in a rational discussion such factors as strength and body mass are irrelevant. We should all start to conceive of human interactions as an exchange between minds, not bodies. (Sex is another kettle of fish, of course).
Well it works both way, Piero, so if you think of it that way maybe it will feel right. Rhys Morgan objected to a bit of sexism on a Facebook the other thread and I backed him up; so did Rebecca Watson. That made it a cross-gender objection, so that was better. Rhys doesn’t need anyone’s help, certainly, but being shouted down can just get wearing.
Rebecca has a post about it.
http://skepchick.org/2012/02/seeing-the-patriarchy/
Oh, well that’s comforting. We can take down the banners and go home: the cure for sexism is that women need to stop being such girls about everything. Who’d a thunk?
The Slog on Penn Jillette on a woman he thinks is unfunny and talentless.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/02/06/penn-jillette-thinks-lindy-west-is-a-cunty-cunt
@Wonk:
I did not intend my post to convey that. Of course I do not think that women are responsible for male-chauvinism, nor that everything will be OK if they just stop being so girly. What I meant was that a firmer attitude on their part could help a lot.
As you can see, for men (well, for me, at least) this is a lose-lose situation: if you defend women against the more egregious displays of sexism, then you are either assuming a paternalistic protective role or you are trying to score “nice guy” points. If you do nothing, then it shows that you expect women to stop being so girly and stand up for their rights.
Since whatever I say will be interpreted less than generously by somebody, I’ll say nothing further.
Piero, well I don’t agree with Wonk, and I do think it’s good for men to speak up. Hell, I think it’s good for everybody to speak up.
I don’t see that as anything but a deeply sexist personal attack. It was a great way to silence those women, and the audience played right into his hands. And nobody seemed to notice that he was able to give his sexist remark without being interrupted, which goes entirely against the premise of his “joke”.
This post, I admit, totally puzzled me, because for me the purpose of “The lady doth protest too much” has never been to simply silence someone. I would use it in a situation like this:
I’m going to the fridge and standing by another person, and I look aside and say “Who took the last piece of chocolate cake?”. A woman nearby says “I didn’t take it, I didn’t even know there was cake in there, and I haven’t been near the fridge all day!”. I’d turn to the other person, male or female, say might quip “The lady doth protest too much”. Meaning that she’s spending a lot of time and effort to protest her innocence — and, in fact, more time and effort than someone who was really innocent was. I thought this is just what it meant. In the comment referenced, I’m not even convinced that it’s used as a “Your ranting too much, shut up” but as more of a “I don’t think your problem with the term is really what you say it is”. But that just seems like an awkward and incorrect use of the term. However, even if that’s what he (presuming) meant, that wouldn’t change how I’d use it. And so at least context has to settle if I mean it as “They talk too much” or “you’re protesting far more than what you’d expect if you really thought what you claim to think”. Now, that might be something that’s supposed to be implied, but I would like to make sure that that’s agreed on.
The same thing applies to interruptions. Speaking as an introverted man, my experience has been that most of the people who will interrupt women will … also interrupt men. They just interrupt people. There are many people — male and female — who will not let ANYONE get a word in edgewise. I was in groups where I had to learn to interrupt or else I wouldn’t get to say anything. So, again, context matters. Surely it cannot be seen as sexism if they do it to everyone?
When I’ve used that line, it has been no preamble, but my entire contribution.
Never occurred to me to limit it to women. I rarely have a good chance to use it as it is.
I share your experience — I’m also pretty solidly introverted (and shy), and I work in a field that has achieved better-than-average gender equality. In professional group situations, the interruption dynamic is much more “some extroverts interrupting anyone” than “some men interrupting women.” I don’t doubt for a moment that the latter dynamic plays out widely and continually, but I do find it welcome that media calling for the social space and professional space to embrace introverts has started to proliferate.
Verbose – fascinating. I’ll try to help.
One, you’re a man. Naturally the phrase doesn’t strike you the same way.
Two, notice your example requires a woman doing the protesting. See point one.
Three, yes of course you would say it to someone of either gender; that’s beside the point.
Four, the cake example is not the same as the one in the comment.
Five, the phrase means something different in its original context from what it means as a boring stale bromide.
Six, it could be that you just don’t pay much attention to sexist vibes of this kind; lots of people don’t. See point one.
I hope that helps.
I was also interested in another feature of this, which is the status of the word “lady.” Where I was brought up (in a fairly conservative part of the western US), calling someone a “woman” was about as crass and denigrating as calling them “a female” – but not because it was supposed to automatically be denigrating to refer to their sex. It had a similar emotional temperature to when John McCain called (then Senator) Obama “that one” in one of the debates.
“Ladies and Gentlemen” was not just an introduction – those words were used in our classrooms regularly, about as often as “boys” and “girls.” It took a lot of readjusting when I moved to NYC for my undergrad to realize that “lady” and “ladies,” which to me was “label used for someone you respect” also implied some kind of “nice, quiet, behavior” beyond that (so as to put women “in their place”).
I’m curious – is the word “lady” totally socially taboo now? (I hope it’s clear this is a genuine question, not a rhetorical one)
Another Matt – yes.
This was one of the early items in Second Wave feminism. No special names for women; men are called men, so women should be called women. Not girls, not ladies, but women.
In a context where men really are being called gentlemen, then ladies is fine, but those are very rare.
Mildly amusing example: there’s a thrift store chain here (Seattle) that annoyed me for years because all the men’s clothes were labeled as such – men’s shirts, men’s jeans, etc – but the women’s were called ladies’ – ladies’ jeans, ladies’ sweaters. I was always meaning to upbraid them about it, but never did. They finally got a clue a year or so ago.
I think the connotations of “lady” and “woman” have changed; 40 years ago, “woman” contained the idea (among others) of sexual experience, or at least, awareness. A “lady” was someone who was loftily above crass things–bad manners, vulgar language, and of course anything to do with sex. An older college roommate corrected me when I used the word “woman” and said it should ONLY be applied to married women; a “lady” became a woman after her wedding night. Interestingly, she called our mutual roommate a lady despite her frequent discussions of sex with her fiance, so at least for her, premarital sex didn’t count unless it was widely known.
As for the Shakespeare quote, whenever I have used it, it has been about a man, usually a politician, trying unconvincingly to deflect suspicion or blame. I will have to keep a sharp lookout for the context when I hear it in the future, as it has some obvious utility as a way to shut up women.
Yes, I have wondered about that. My local (Upstate NY) department stores all now have 5 sections of clothing for women/young-women: “Juniors” and “Misses” for teenagers through 20s (odd sizes for juniors and even for misses, if I remember correctly from shopping with my wife), “Ladies” for “regular women,” “Maternity,” and in the last couple of years a new section called “Woman” — not “Women” but “Woman” — which means “plus sizes” or sometimes “plus sizes and seniors” depending on the store. I assume this is a country-wide thing, and I’m not sure how to feel about it, or about sizing for women’s clothing in general, which seems arbitrary and frustrating.
Ophelia,
“One, you’re a man. Naturally the phrase doesn’t strike you the same way.”
The point of the example was more to show what I’d mean when I used the phrase and what the meaning of it was as far as I knew, not just about how it strikes me. I still submit that that’s what the phrase means, at least when I use it, and you never addressed at all if using it with my intended meaning is a problem.
“Two, notice your example requires a woman doing the protesting. See point one.”
You seem, here, to be doing the same thing that I was bothered by originally: assuming what I mean without bothering to check what my intention was. The only reason I used a woman was so that I could actually use that phrase; in general, I’m far more likely to use the phrase “Thou dost protest too much”. Which was precisely the reason I added in another person as well, so that I could in fact have a logical and realistic example where using that phrase didn’t sound awkward and fake. T’is a style thing.
“Three, yes of course you would say it to someone of either gender; that’s beside the point.”
Absolutely. I only added it to avoid people suggesting that it would be something I’d only say to a man and expect a sympathetic or laughing response.
“Four, the cake example is not the same as the one in the comment.”
As I conceded, stated, and clarified in my comment itself. That was, in fact, part of the point, as I was proposing that that was how I’d use the phrase and there wouldn’t even be any possible way to interpret it as sexist, as far as I could see. I did say that my point might have been meant to be implied.
“Five, the phrase means something different in its original context from what it means as a boring stale bromide.”
I did comment that you had to use context to determine if it was sexist or not. Again, something that I wanted to make sure was indeed being considered. I suspect my use is closer to the intended use in the original than Steersman’s was.
“Six, it could be that you just don’t pay much attention to sexist vibes of this kind; lots of people don’t. See point one.”
Are there any sexist vibes in the example I gave and, thus, the intended meaning when I use the phrase? Your reply studiously ignores the meaning I intend when I use that phrase, so I’m totally unclear on what your view on that is.
Good grief, Verbose – I read what you wrote and commented on it. You expect me to ask you what you meant first? I assumed you meant what you wrote. I don’t have all day to spend on a single comment of yours.
Ophelia,
No, you ASSUMED what I meant based on a blatant reading into what I actually wrote by focusing on things that meant nothing like what you suggested and ignoring the clarifications I made directly after. At this point, it would be reasonable for me to claim that you didn’t, in fact, read what I wrote.
Verbose…This is the whole point. Man uses certain words in a certain way. Woman points out that the words have sexist implications. The whole point is that the man may have done this without being fully aware of the sexist implications. You think you said one thing. I’m saying I get another thing. It’s interpretation.
But to me that results in my simply saying that I didn’t say — or mean — what you think I said or meant.
So, take this case. You talked about the phrase essentially being a call for the woman to shut up. I said that I never ever use the term that way and as far as I knew it didn’t mean that at all. Presuming just for an instant that in my cultural context I’m right about that, then shouldn’t you consider that context and accept what I meant?
Really, the big thing here is that I’d really like to know if in the example I gave of how I use the phrase is one that actually has sexist implications, which you’ve never addressed.
Well sure; you can just say that’s not what you meant.
Your example would have made your point better if it hadn’t been a woman protesting about the cake.
Anyway no: just using the phrase and idea “protests too much” is not sexist. Yes, sure, it has become just a way of saying “protests so much that it looks suspicious.”
But that’s not how it worked with the example in the post. It’s just stupid, and sexist, for a man to preface a substantive philosophical disagreement with a woman by dragging in the completely irrelevant tag. Making an argument isn’t protesting too much.
I think a certain kind of pompous, labored, self-consciously “witty” style gets people into traps like this. I think Steersman just wanted to be clever and amusing, and the phrase popped into his mind and seemed apt. But it wasn’t apt. It was very unapt, which made it conspicuous. It’s a kind of wannabe Mencken or Johnson or Chesterton thing. I think Edwin Kagin suffers from it, too.
@Ophelia:
“Verbose – fascinating. I’ll try to help.
One, you’re a man. Naturally the phrase doesn’t strike you the same way.”
I’m sorry. I really don’t like to disagree with you, but in this case I must.
Your are implying that men can never understand what women have to go through just because they are men. As I said in a previous post, interactions between people should be regarded as interactions between minds and hence gender-neutral.
Dismissing men’s opinions merely because they come from a male brain is, I believe, a sure way to exacerbate the “us vs. them” mentality that was so painfully evident throughout the elevatorgate episode, which was hijacked by some male jerks to vent their unconscious dread and hatred towards women. This should not be interpreted as an atemmpt to blame Rebecca Watson. On the contrary, it is an attempt to show that men’s brains are sometimes pliable, and can respond to convincing arguments. If the first line of an argument is equivalent to saying “You are male, hence a jerk”, then I’ll be unwilling to follow the rest. This is of course an irrational attitude, but we are mammals, not deities, and as such are subject to emotional reactions just as much as women are.
Verbose’s comment was, in my opinion, fallacious and a bit silly. But I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand because Verbose is a man. If men are prevented from saying anything on issues of gender equality merely because they are men, what way forward?
Finally, “you’re a man. Naturally the phrase doesn’t strike you the same way” is a bare assertion, not an argument. In fact, since none of us are mind-readers, we cannot possibly claim to know how a phares strikes us. In my teen years I used to be a great fan of Catalunyian singer-composer Joan Manuel Serrat. Until I came across the following in one of his songs:
“Pick up your mule, your woman and your cattle”
I found that line so amazingly disgusting that I never listened to his songs again.
I repeat: the only way forward is to interact with ecah other as minds, not as bodies. Bodies are inextricably linked to sex, and to our most basic instincts. Arguing with each other as bodies will inevitably lead to emotional, irrational arguments the origin of which we are nor even aware of. Let’s argiue with our cortex, not with our hypothalamus.
@piero – Except if we do say, “Hear me out, I’m not finished,” what will follow, 9 times out of 10, is some comment about being shrill or bitchy or overbearing (“Gee, so-o-o-or-ry, but you don’t have to be a bitch about it.”), followed by a sarcastic show of waiting for us to finish what we had to say, after which they will promptly dismiss whatever you were trying to say and continue the conversation as if the interruption was allowed to happen. Because you can’t just stand up for yourself, you have to do it in a way that doesn’t sound upset or hurt or irritated, because then you’re being bitchy and over-reacting.
The 1 time out of 10 that someone actually listens (regardless of whether they agree with it) is golden… but frankly, a 1 in 10 chance of being listened to is usually not worth the career damage that will result from being considered a shrill, overbearing and emotional bitch.
Want more of us to stand up for ourselves? Help make an environment where doing so on a regular basis isn’t career suicide.
@Aratina Cage:
“I don’t see that as anything but a deeply sexist personal attack. It was a great way to silence those women, and the audience played right into his hands. And nobody seemed to notice that he was able to give his sexist remark without being interrupted, which goes entirely against the premise of his “joke”.”
As I said in my post, I “confessed” having laughed at this. I know it is wrong, but I’m not perfect. What made me laugh was the timing of his remark: Jack Dee chose to make it precisely when Ronni Ancona and Sandi Toksvig had been talking for longer than usual in that TV programme. But for Dee’s remark, I would never realized that. So yes, it was a sexist remark, but a perfectly timed one, and it made me laugh. Now shoot me. Behead me. Stone me.
Are women really more talkative than men? As far as I know, no scientific studies have been conducted on the issue, so I cannot tell wheter it is a sterotype or a fact of life.
@ischemgeek:
“Gee, so-o-o-or-ry, but you don’t have to be a bitch about it.”
Perhaps I’ve worked in exceptional environments, but that kind of reply would, in my experience, be strongly frowned upon. I live in Chile, and in Chilean Spanish we have no equivalent for “bitch”, “slut”, “cunt” or other obnoxiously disparaging terms. Yes, we do have some sexist words, such as “mina” (a woman considered as a female sexual object) and “puta” (a woman who is ready to have sexual intercourse with almost anyone), but then we also have the exact male equivalent: “mino” and “puto”. This is a recent development, mainly amongst the younger generation.
There is no way we could call a colleague a “bitch”, or even “bitchy”. “Bitch” translates as “perra” (literally, a female dog) and it would be shockingly offensive even in the worst company. I’m pretty sure that if I called a female colleague a “perra” I would be beaten up and kicked out by all my colleagues (male and female included), with the female ones doing most of the kicking (they usally wear lethal shoes). Failing that, I’d certainly be lectured by my boss (a woman, by the way) and warned that such behaviour could result in my immediate dismissal, with no right to compensation pay.
The closest thing I can think of in Chilean Spanish is to ask a woman whether she’s having her period, implying that she’s being more emotional that rational. But that’s a no-no in any serious environment. Anyone who says such a thing in a business meeting, for example, would be asked to leave. In fact, I’ve only met the expression between males: “are you having your period” means you are getting unnecessarily wound up. It is shamefully sexist, but at leat it is never directed at women. Maybe that makes it hypocritical as well as sexist: but it’s probably no more hypocritical than other established codes of manners, like not farting in public. We all pretend we never fart, yet we all know we all do.
So no, in my country I’ve never witnessed a bare-faced attempt to shut up a woman with such uncivilized insults, and I’m quite confident I’ll never will.
piero, @ 36 – fair point. Certainly, some men can hear sexism and some women can’t. But there are times when someone just is tone-deaf to it, and when it’s a man…well, sometimes that seems to be relevant. It’s hard to know how to say that without seeming to say it’s a universal male thing. So don’t say it at all, maybe…But Verbose was being…Verbose, so I said it.
Regarding the vulgarity and “uncivilized insults”, where I live “are you on the rag?” (ie, are you on your period, with the same implication as the term you’re talking about) is actually more vulgar than being called a bitch… to the point that the one and only time I saw parent-on-parent violence in my home was my mother punching my father for asking that in a heated argument. It’s about equivalent with being called a “cunt” or a “pussy” in terms of vulgarity but is often more hurtful because it’s only ever used to invalidate the other person’s feelings about something (a non-sexist equivalent – though no less vulgar and hurtful – would be to imply that the other person needs to be in a local psych ward… it’s that level of “you’re reacting to this in such an over-the-top way there must be something seriously wrong with your mind and I refuse to even try to understand why you’re so upset because to do so would be entertaining your delusions” sentiment). Bitch is a term thrown around pretty casually, about equivalent to your “mina” from what I can tell.
Regarding the sexism and attempts to silence: I think it’s more likely that you have the same thing where you’re from, and you’ve just never noticed because you don’t have to. Just like I never noticed the bullshit Natives have to deal with here in Canada until I started dating one and witnessing first-hand all the stereotypes he has to combat, and the ignorant judgements and comments he deals with on a so-many-times-a-day-I-tried-keeping-track-once-and-lost-count-in-the-hundreds basis.
Maybe ask one of the women you work with why she won’t insist on being heard out when a man interrupts her. And ask another. Maybe even ask all of them who you’ve seen hold their tongues after being cut off by a man. The answers they give (assuming you’re genuinely curious and are nonjudgemental) might surprise you. For me, it’s a sense of, “even if I make an issue of it, nothing will change and I’ll end up looking the bad guy. I could spark a grudge if I make an issue, and that would damage my career, all for a complaint that probably won’t have anything done about it anyway. What’s the point?” I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s the case elsewhere, too.
It’s still fun to tease people with that statement, but in a serious conversation, i think it comes off as a bit obnoxious …
@ischemgeek:
Points taken.
@ischemgeek:
Upon futher reflexion, most points taken, except for some (perhaps minor) objections:
“Are you on the rag” is an incredibly offensive quip (I actually found it quite shocking; there is nothing in my language even approaching that level of nastiness), much more so than “are you on your period.” It’s like comparing “have you got a cold” to “is your handkerchief full of snot.” Of course, “have you got a cold” has no sexist connotations, but I’m trying to make the point that “are you on your period” is a sexist quip meant to imply that menstruating women are somehow mentally diminished, whereas “are you on the rag” carries, in addition, the implication that female bodies are dirtier tham male ones.
I know that “bitch” is thrown around casually. That’s what makes it even more disgusting. Some decades ago “nigger” was also thrown around casually.
Understanding the level of discrimination that a native American has to put up with is indeed very difficult. We have the same problem in Chile with native Chileans, or Mapuche (pronounced mah-poo-chay, meaning “people of the earth”). Other native ethnicities were simply exterminated: Onas, Alacalufes, Yaganes, etc., so the “problem” was “solved” á la Hitler. Yet I don’t think the comparison with women is valid. As men, we daily interact with women, we marry women, we have sex with women, we participate with women in every social, political, cultural and personal way.
As I said before, I’ve never seen an opinion dismissed merely because it came from a woman, but I’ve seen women being rudely interrupted by jerks, and sometimes I’ve intervened, but not without thinking to myself “why is this woman allowing this jerk to interrupt her?”. If I conducted the poll you suggested, I’m quite sure I’d get the results you mentioned. The question now is “How can we change these results?.” I don’t intend to eschew my responsibility as a man, but then neither should women.
Ophelia (#8),
Thus her line simply reeks of irony and ambiguity. It’s really not a sampler-lesson telling women to stfu.
As I mentioned on Eric’s site, I think that both you and Eric are relying on a “subtle and nuanced” interpretation of Shakespeare as literature that I was never “privileged” enough to acquire – I had to make-do, on the other side of the tracks, with the colloquial interpretation which I was at pains to clearly define and point out – several times as a matter of fact. Aesop’s fable of the fox and crane springs to mind, although questions of intent may be relevant.
But from reading through various comments here and about I can see the problem of trying “to shut up a woman” simply because she is a woman seems decidedly pervasive and problematic – something I’ve never really noticed, probably due, in part at least, to being in a position of “privilege”. And by which token it is at least understandable why you would have thought my comment was of the same type and have responded accordingly.
However, while I’m sorry you thought that was the case I really don’t think it is. I figure I spent some effort to provide several examples – Rebecca Watson’s use of semi-gendered insults directed at men and Greta Christina’s skepticism that all accusations of misogynism were credible – to justify my assertion that some protests against all uses of “sexist denigrating language of the gutter” were incongruous, excessive and not at all credible, i.e. “too much”. Not at all any type of imperious command to “stfu”.
That I used that phrase as a paradigm for the subsequent argument – apt or not, the latter seeming to rely more on questions of tone than content – is probably unfortunate at least and I probably should have been more aware of “the lay of the land”, the nature of the audience I was addressing. However, since I wasn’t talking specifically to the local chapter of feminists I can’t see that I should be faulted for being unaware of all of the various nuances and connotations of the word “ladies”, particularly since none of the definitions for the word look at all pejorative.
Charge me with a regulatory offence or a misdemeanor, not murder with “malice aforethought”.
@piero
Comedians often act with impunity for others feelings or common humanity if they think it will get them a laugh. I guess the real problem is the male-centric climate in which jokes about women being women are not frowned upon like jokes about other groups being their stereotype are frowned on. While it was a joke, it was also a silencing tactic, and I think that you at least recognize that. I mean, why even invite women on the show if you are just going to end up telling them to shut up because people like them talk too much?
Now, where did I put that axe?
I’ve heard random people on the streets in Mexico use that slur toward a feminine man, too.
Chris Lawson (#11),
“Sticks and stones” and a smiley face. …. If the purpose of the smiley face is to say “I’m being sarcastic here, please don’t take this literally!”
It was an oblique reference to a previous discussion here, I think – though I can’t find the link at the moment – during which Ophelia argued that:
I think “sticks and stones” is one of the worst aphorisms ever invented.
With which I disagreed – seems to put questions of feelings ahead of questions of truth which looks decidedly problematic to me and entirely inconsistent with the justifications for criticizing Islam, i.e. that Muslims are offended is no reason to heed their demands to “stfu”.
And it was a more or less direct reference to my willingness to not be offended at any “sneery” comment she might make in my direction and to consider the merits of her argument. That I was entirely willing to listen to.
Ophelia Benson (#20),
Piero, well I don’t agree with Wonk, and I do think it’s good for men to speak up. Hell, I think it’s good for everybody to speak up.
Though apparently you would limit what people – mostly men by the looks of it – could say. Would you create another gigantic, shadowy, monolithic in-your-face Ministry of Truth to dictate exactly what everyone could say in each and every circumstance?
I kind of like Blitzgal’s take on the question [Blaghag; Bingo Card; Post #4.1]:
Ding ding ding!! Freedom of speech does not include freedom from criticism. Penn Jillette has the right to call someone a cunt. And we have an equal right to explain why he’s a giant fucking asshole for doing it. Free speech all around!
Far less expensive and far more efficient, not to mention being a manifestation of “power to the people”. Although defining the reasons in each case might require a significant level of honesty – to do it right in any case. But I think it would be great if there was a gigantic score board so we could see how many votes Jillette got for being an asshole as opposed to how many votes for his target being a cunt. I expect he would take the booby prize ….
@Aratina Cage:
“Comedians often act with impunity for others feelings or common humanity if they think it will get them a laugh”
Certainly. It is a dangerous balance, though. Sometimes it could get them a “booo”. An example of a joke that could have misfired, but didn’t: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZTahQZs76Y.
I don’t think Dee’s joke was a silencing tactic. In fact, it was in his interest for Ronni Ancona and Sandi Toksvig to keep participating in the exchange, so he could resort to other sterotypes to get a laugh.
I’d like to point out that your post seems to imply that “comedian” means “male comedian.” I would not blame you for that sexist assumption, given that in fact most comedians are in fact male, just as most elementary teachers are female. But it goes to show that practically no-one is free from prejudice, and that includes men AND women.
@Aratina Cage:
In Chile “puta” is never used, as it is in Mexico, to refer to a feminine man. We have an emabarrassingly large repertory of words to refer to homosexuals of both sexes, though.
Verbose Stoic (#22),
In the comment referenced, I’m not even convinced that it’s used as a “You’re ranting too much, shut up” but as more of a “I don’t think your problem with the term is really what you say it is”.
More or less correct, although I think your use of the word “term” is a little obscure and what you probably mean by it, as you suggested in a previous sentence, is something closer to “argument”. In which case it’s not that “I don’t think your problem with the [argument] is really what you say it is”, but more along the line of “These facts apparently contradict your argument and your vehemence in the face of them detracts from its credibility and leads one to question the reasons for your vehemence”.
Which I think is then quite consistent with your cake scenario.
But that just seems like an awkward and incorrect use of the term.
As indicated in the Wikipedia article:
The phrase has come to mean that one can “insist so passionately about something not being true that people suspect the opposite of what one is saying.
Which is, I think, essentially what I described above.
Although I’m curious as to how the mind works whereby it comes to see that type of vehemence, that “passionate intensity”, as an indicator of some possible incongruities – not necessarily the case but enough to raise suspicions. Not to mention causing Shakespeare to record the phenomenon in Hamlet.
But one possible explanation comes from cases of “a mother-bird feigning injury” to lead predators away from the nests. I remember seeing an example of that in which a bird ran across a road squawking and dragging a wing as if it was broken. Presumably had some benefits to be passed along to subsequent generations, but a predator’s second-order response is to head in the opposite direction that the bird is going.
Steersman,
I interpreted how you used the phrase based on the rest of your comment, and my interpretation was, to my mind, charitable. So it looks like you do know how to use the phrase but the rest of your comment didn’t make it seem like that was what you meant, and then I’ll say that Ophelia is wrong to suggest that that phrase actually means “Shut up”. She, then, was reacting to the rest of what you said and back-interpreting onto how you meant the phrase.
As for why this happens, it’s simple folk psychology. The person is trying to seem to hold a certain position while not holding it, and so they react in ways that someone who really held that position wouldn’t. In the case where this phrase would apply, they hold it too strongly and dogmatically to really believe it. The phrase gets a little awkward when applied to arguments …
Verbose Stoic (#53),
So it looks like you do know how to use the phrase but the rest of your comment didn’t make it seem like that was what you meant …
I was sort of focused on trying to present the facts that seemed inconsistent with the argument and which was leading me to question it, and not so much on the niceties of the colloquial expression that more or less motivated the questioning. And I was maybe a little more obscure, unclear, terse or light on the evidence than I should have been. Although I only presented it as a tentative hypothesis in passing onto to the primary point that Eric was trying to address, even if I felt and still feel there are some significant and important linkages.
As for why this happens, it’s simple folk psychology.
Sounds like a plausible overview, an explanation of some of the dynamics which can definitely get a little convoluted.
The phrase gets a little awkward when applied to arguments
I sort of see the arguments made being synonymous with the position held.
[But time for me to call it a night]
@piero
Uh, no. Really, I don’t understand how you get that from that comment of mine. I was actually thinking of women who are comedians when I began writing that as a way to balance my thoughts. Comedians kill; that is a skill they learn in the trade.
That is the problem: he can resort to stereotype jokes about women and get a free laugh each time, but he can’t do that about race (and only very recently about sexual orientation) without moving quickly into permanent career damage territory. And it was a silencing tactic. Those two women were his peers on a panel, but he chose to lazily go after them and shame them for being women rather than work to find a person in the audience not part of the panel or someone not there as the target of his joke.
That wasn’t really funny. I didn’t laugh at all (perhaps because I am a gay man and find the whole prospect of getting gay friends just for fashion tips a bit silly). That joke rested on him using the verb fuck as a double-entendre in conjunction with an othering of gay men (as in, “Watch out, they’ll fuck you, man“). It even says on the video clip that the joke was deemed “too offensive” and not broadcast.
I don’t have time at the moment to figure out who said it, but someone (hopefully on this post) said they weren’t aware of any science that explored whether men or more talkative than women.
That’s not true, it’s something that’s been explored in the social sciences over the years.
A study in 2007 had men and women wear devices that automatically recorded them every 12 1/2 minutes.
They found that both men and women spoke approximately 16,000 words a day, on average, and that the difference between the two genders was not statistically significant.
Here are some links:
Science (where it was originally published)
NPR
PubMed
@Godless Heathen:
Thank you for the links. I was in fact unaware of that study, so my statement was true. I did not claim there weren’t any such studies.
@Aratina Cage:
I’m afraid your reply doesn’t quite tally with your previous comment:
But it is a moot point, and I’ll have to give you the benefit of the doubt.
What I meant was that the joke worked, in the sense that it got laughs from the audience and from the panel. Whether you or I find it unfunny is another matter.
I don’t want to derail this thread by starting tu discuss the psychology of humour, but it is worth remembering that some so-called jokes get laughs because they are actually shocking rather than funny. Witness the “sick jokes” which were popular some decades ago.
@piero
Gotcha. I couldn’t find your original post, but wanted to get a response out.
Glad I could help.
@piero
How in the world do you figure that? Unless you can explain it, then I expect you to drop it.
Racist jokes work to get a laugh from some audiences, too. That doesn’t make them OK.
Such as the anti-gay joke you linked to on YouTube.
It isn’t about whether or not you or I find it funny or not. That is not what I was getting at. I am saying that the kind of jokes that rest on stereotyping women need to be dispensed with and subjected to the kind of shame that one gets telling other bigoted jokes about sexual orientation and race. And that anti-gay joke you linked to did get censored; that comedian didn’t get broadcast or receive accolades in the media for saying it. I told you that it wasn’t funny to me and reasoned about why it might have been that way so you could try and view it from my perspective instead of your own.
Holy shit! Once more I regret having posted on this blog. Sorry, Ophelia, it has nothing to do with you.
@Aratina Cage:
The reply I referred to contained the line “While it was a joke, it was also a silencing tactic, and I think that you at least recognize that”. You are obviously referring to Jack Dee. Since this line is contained in an uninterrupted paragraph, I think it is fair to assume the rest of it referred to female sterotypes being used as comedy material by male comedians. Otherwise, you would have included something like “While this applies to both male and female comedians, in the case at hand it should also be noted that…” or something similar. So no, I’m not dropping my original reply, nor do I feel the need to apologize, because either you are being insencere or you failed to convey your intended meaning. Be it as it may, it’s not my fault.
I’ve already made it clear that by “the joke worked” I meant “it made the audience laugh”. I did not say the joke was OK in the ethical, anthropological, cultural, postmodernist, zen or any other sense. I said it worked, i.e. it got the result the comedian was after.
And yes, the joke I linked to could be a good example of the shock effect getting laughs. I cannot tell for sure, of course, but it appears to me that 50 years ago an audience would probably have laughed at “fags” being mocked, whereas the program audience probably laughed at thinking to themselves,”OMG, did he really say THAT?”. Frankie Boyle and Jimmy Carr have also obtained laughs from audiences with jokes about handicapped children: it should be clear that the shock effect is at work in such cases, unless the audiences were composed mostly by monsters, which is statistically improbable. I won’t link to the jokes, because you obviously find them distasteful; but should you want to see what I mean, they are easily found on YouTube.
And of course, it isn’t about whether you or anybody else finds the joke funny. I said as much in my previous post. I don’t understand why you belabour a point already made and accepted.
@piero
So, you assumed that I meant male comedians throughout the paragraph? Well I didn’t. Read it again without that assumption.
I didn’t ask you to apologize. I’m simply saying that you assumed too much about what I meant. I hope it is clear to you now that you were the one who associated comedian with male, not me.
Or, you made the mistake of thinking that doctor means man. Yeah, I think that is what happened here actually.
Come off it! I was the one saying that people don’t seem to realize how terrible they are being towards women, and I originally thought you understood that. Then you went on saying that what that man did on the show to the women was not a silencing tactic which seems to go against the reality of the footage that you provided. Whether someone laughs or not doesn’t change the fact that it was wrong of that man to do that.
Let me guess, you are not gay? If you are, then you must live in a better culture for gay people than the USA is.
And the President (Obama) got laughs for doing that, too, at first. Then he was shamed into apologizing.
Because you tried to dismiss my criticism of the anti-gay joke by saying that it didn’t matter that it wasn’t funny to me. Actually, it did matter. I was offering you that perspective and you chose not to take it so I reiterated it.
@Aratina Cage:
This discussion is getting out of hand. I don’t want to get angry, because it will probably shorten my life, so I’ll just say this:
1. I am against discrimination. Specifically, I’m against jokes that base their effect on stereotypes or ridiculing anyone.
2. I’ve said three times already that whether anyone considers the joke to be funny or not is another matter altogether. Drop it.
3. I’m not gay.
4. I live in Chile, a fairly conservative country (if such a construct makes sense), but probably more liberal than soome parts of the USA. In any case, Frankie Boyle is Scottish, and he told that joke on a BBC programme.
5. I did not say Boyle and Carr were right in joking about handicapped children. My point was that laughter can be a reaction both to a humorous situauion and to a shocking one. We could discuss whether a comedian should adopt the strategy of shocking his/her audience, but thata discussion I won’t get into.
6. When I said that it didn’t matter whether the joke was or was not funny to you, I did not mean to dismiss your criticism. In fact, you’ve made the very same point several times.
7. Good night.
piero (#),
Specifically, I’m against jokes that base their effect on stereotypes or ridiculing anyone. …
Generally agree with much of what you’ve said, although I haven’t closely followed your conversation with Aratina Cage.
However, apart from the fact that a large percentage of jokes seem to be based on the ridiculing of stereotypes, it seems that such stereotypes are frequently fairly accurate and their ridicule can have some salutary and socially beneficial effects – at least where the underlying attributes are amendable to some changes. Seems to me that the Jesus & Mo cartoons are some perfectly reasonable examples and are entirely apropos.
@Steersman:
I agree. But ridiculing a stereotype is the opposite of ridiculing a victim of a stereotype.
Thanks for answering my pointed questions even though you didn’t have to, piero, and for explaining your points in a different way. I actually don’t find anything disagreeable with what you wrote this time. I would like to go on about what you said in #65 about ridiculing stereotypes because I think I would agree with you there, but maybe some other time. Have a good night.
@Aratina Cage:
Thanks. I’m glad we could reach an agreement.
My previous “good night” was a lie: I knew I would not be able to sleep, but I said it anyway. Sometimes I’m like that.
Why didnt I feel about this? I hear precisely what youre stating and Im so delighted that I came across your blogging site. You truly know what youre talking about, therefore you built me really feel like I ought to learn a lot more concerning this. Many thanks for this; Im formally a tremendous supporter of your blog