Arguing with "That Guy"

[mousme]

Working in the field of security/law enforcement has, in the past two-odd years, thrown me smack dab against a huge freaking pile of Those Guys.

I was reminded of this forcefully last night when talking to Excitable!Puppy, and had it pointed out to me by the ever-vigilant and eloquent aislingtheach. I was also reminded forcefully of how ill-equipped I am to argue with a Guy Like That.

Let me state for the record, before I continue down the road where this train of thought is taking me, that I am pissed off at the thought that I constantly feel guilty when I don't call guys (and occasionally girls) who spew misogynistic bullshit on their bullshit every single time they do it. It makes me fucking angry that I feel as though I'm betraying all three billion women who share this planet with me every time I think "I don't have the energy to deal with this today." The old if-you're-not-part-of-the-solution-you're-part-of-the-problem song and dance is old and patently fucking unfair. Why is it that women are OBLIGATED to rise to the defense of their gender (lest they be-part-of-the-problem) but all men have to do is remain silent in order to be considered neutral at the very least, or a silent ally at best? A woman who doesn't immediately speak up is betraying her entire gender, simply by ducking her head as a means of self-defense.

FUCK THAT.

*pant pant*

Okay, that being said, I would like to move back to my original problem. Since I *do* feel that it's important for me to argue with the jackasses at work, who genuinely don't consider themselves jackasses, I need help. Often enough I have no rational argument to come back with for these people. I just feel, instinctively, that what they are saying is fallacious in the extreme. Hell, even my mother occasionally spews misogynistic garbage that she genuinely believes is Right and True (and my mother is a hell of a force of nature: she worked in advertising for forty cut-throat years, and would eviscerate anyone who tried to take away her right to vote). What I want to know is: where can I go to find the people who have rational arguments that will help me?

Let me provide examples, to illustrate my problem.

1- "The balance of power has shifted. Women are more powerful than men now: look at all the TV commercials in which men are presented as idiots and women have to come to their rescue."

Me: AUGH! You understand that commercials aren't real, right? The same goes for television/movies in general. It's just a cheap ploy of the advertising agencies to pat women on the head, make them think they're clever/powerful, and encourage them to buy crap.

2- "Women want it all: they want to be treated like men in the workplace, but they still expect men to buy them dinner and hold doors for them."

Me: AUGH! Why is it that if you open a door for me, it automatically invalidates ALL MY OTHER RIGHTS AS A FUCKING HUMAN BEING? I don't expect people to buy me dinner, but god damn it, why does holding open a door/otherwise being "chivalrous" somehow constitute my immediate capitulation and acceptance of a role as a lesser being?

3- "All the men I know are afraid of their wives. Everyone knows women hold the true power. Haven't they always said that behind every great man stands a strong woman?"

Me: AUGH! I can't even begin to tell you how much that statement is made of WRONG and FAIL. Have you ever noticed that the woman in that saying is never allowed to hold her own goddamn seat of power? The man's rightful place is in the seat of power, whereas the woman, regardless of intelligence or merit, must be content to lurk in the shadows, where she fucking well belongs.


The list goes on and on and on.

My mother's favourite argument is that women brought all their troubles on themselves. She likes to use construction as her metaphor: "If women want to use jackhammers and act like men, it's their own fault if men treat them badly afterward." My mother's logic is not earth-logic. I'm usually able to point out that it's not *just* construction that women want to do: how about science? How about medicine? (My mother doesn't like going to male doctors, but doesn't see the irony there)

Every week (sometimes every day), I am subjected to comments about women being on the rag, women being bitches, women being airheads, women "oppressing" men with their feminism. "Feminist" is a dirty word where I work: it means you're a lesbian man-hater. I have been coming out slowly at work, when the opportunity presents itself, and you should SEE the damned shock on people's faces: "You're a lesbian?!? But... but you're nice! You wear makeup and skirts! You haven't tried to castrate me with a ballpoint pen!" It makes me SICK.

Random tangent about heterosexism and heterosexual privilege

I helped a co-worker have a lightbulb moment the other day about heterosexual privilege. Context: she's an older, married woman. Her daughter works in the central with us, and she's married to an RCMP officer. She is good people, and has a beloved cousin who's gay, and even had a girlfriend when she was in high school (briefly). I was trying to explain that, when you're gay and not closeted, you spend your entire life "coming out" to people.

Coworker: "So why do you need to 'come out' at work? Or anywhere? It isn't anyone's business who you sleep with, after all."

Me: "True. I could not 'come out' at all, if I didn't want to. But that creates a whole extra other set of stresses and problems."

Coworker: "How so?"

Me: "Think of it this way. When I ask you what you did this weekend, without hesitation you're going to answer that you went to a restaurant with your husband. Then we might talk about the movie. Never will I question the validity of your married, heterosexual relationship. If you ask me what I did this weekend, and I'm not open about being gay, I have several choices. One is to not answer. Another is to strategically omit my lesbian lover/partner from the conversation, and simply say that I went to a movie. A third is to play the 'pronoun game' and mention the partner but never her name or her gender. The fourth choice is to mention my lover but not mention that we're lovers and act as though she's just a friend. The fifth choice is to out myself."

Coworker: "Wow. I never thought of that before."

Me: "That's because you never had to. It's not part of your experience, because you have that privilege."

As a gay person, however, I have to think about it every time my personal life comes up in conversation. At a certain level it's easier to be "out" than to be closeted, because you don't have to wrap yourself up in a web of lies. On the other hand, we're lucky enough to live in a city where being gay is generally accepted, and it's generally frowned upon to openly discriminate against gays. Not that I haven't been subjected to terms like "carpet-muncher" at work (and lit into the guy so hard he never knew what hit him).

Okay, digression over.


I'm tired of being the Bastion of Feminism at work, but since that's my role, I want to damned well be better-equipped to tell people (in particular the men, but also some of the women) why their sexist assumptions are wrong. Or at least make them think twice about their position of privilege.

To a certain extent, I'd like to be able to do this wrt to race as well, but I am well aware that in that area I, too, speak from a position of privilege. I am leery of getting too involved in an elaborate discussion in an area in which I probably have any number of blind spots due to said privilege.

I would just like to find a way to make an impact with these people. To make them stop and reconsider, and think "You know, it never occurred to me to look at it that way before." I don't think I'll ever change them completely —some of these guys are nearly sixty and have never thought differently in their lives— but I'd like at the very least to be able to stand up for myself in an argument with them.

Comments

[the-xtina.livejournal.com]

My mother's favourite argument is that women brought all their troubles on themselves. She likes to use construction as her metaphor: "If women want to use jackhammers and act like men, it's their own fault if men treat them badly afterward."

Every time I think of that, I wonder how it is we let men outside at all, if they're so poor of self-control that they can't help but mistreat women.

I am snarktacular.

[mousme.livejournal.com]

The way I see it (in this fallacious-argument context) is that they only show poor self-control when they are provoked by ch1xx0rz who don't know their proper places.

So the onus is on women to monitor their own behaviour, lest they provoke the man-beasts into losing their control.

Victim-blaming at its best.

[aislingtheach.livejournal.com]

«My mother's favourite argument is that women brought all their troubles on themselves. She likes to use construction as her metaphor: "If women want to use jackhammers and act like men, it's their own fault if men treat them badly afterward."»

When people bring up statements like these, I usually ask them to develop their minds. If I respond too fast, it sort of sends the message I agree with their premisse or I feel they are making a point, which they are not.

I prefer to let them «se pendre avec leur propre corde». A problem arises, however, when that person is just going endlessly from one statement to another like a butterfly, without making any sense but figuring out that if they're spewing as much stuff out as possible, we'll feel overwhelmed by «their facts». Then we need to be good with our memory and bring people back to their first statements.

If you haven't already read the book, I strongly suggest you take a look at «Petit cours d'autodéfense intellectuelle», de Normand Baillargeon. It's a gem.

Finalement - et ceci n'a pas rapport avec ce mini-thread -, je t'avoue que les commentaires de Monte me dérangent profondément. J'aimerais te dire que je comprends tout à fait ton exaspération, ainsi que la dimension émotionnelle de la chose. Il est trop facile de parler de rationalité quand on ne vit aucune oppression, et surtout quand on est pas aussi rationnel et non-émotif qu'on le prétend. Le problème avec le type de discussions dont on parle, c'est que nos premiers efforts rationnels se heurtent aux défenses irrationnelles de ces hommes, et c'est précisément ça qui nous fait péter notre coche. Mais ils sont tellement aveuglés par leur position de pouvoir qu'ils ne reconnaîtront jamais - ou trop rarement - leur émotivité et leur irrationalité. Dans leur tête, seules les femmes deviennent émotives et stridentes.

Yé.

[mousme.livejournal.com]

Merci!

Je t'ai envoyé un courriel à ce propos juste avant d'avoir lu ce commentaire. Great minds think alike, comme on dit. :)

[sirena73]

Sing it, sister.
I've been right there with you - "I am too tired to deal with this particular set of stupid today". And then feel guilty for the rest of the day for NOT speaking up. Or I start off sounding very smart, and then eventually I start waving my hands around and my voice goes all squeaky and I just end up making no sense at all. Shrill, silly woman. :(

Anyway...I totally feel you on the "outing" yourself thing, too; not personally, but my dad's gay. I find it hilarious when I talk about him and his partner (now husband! yay California!), and people are like, "Wait....how can your dad be gay if he has a kid?" *rolls eyes*

[mousme.livejournal.com]

Or I start off sounding very smart, and then eventually I start waving my hands around and my voice goes all squeaky and I just end up making no sense at all. Shrill, silly woman. :(

Yes, this. Because being emotional and passionate about a subject = womanly, female, and weak. Emotion automatically invalidates an argument, because Real Men have no emotions. :P

It's highly frustrating to have to constantly play by other people's rules in order to have them possibly potentially maybe consider that those rules might, maybe, be wrong.

Picking your battlefield correctly.

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

If you're going to argue with your heart be a writer, or some other sort of artist. Passion argues through showing, through art. Reason argues through logic, non-contradictory identification, discernment of essential characteristics, transformation of symbols. If you're going to fight on reason's battlefield, you have to be dispassionate, not just because some "Dead White Men" got together in the Classical Age and invented "the rules" simply to put women at a disadvantage but because that's simply the way reason works. Right or wrong do not care what you feel; they simply are. Emotion doesn't automatically invalidate an argument because "Real Men have no emotions"; emotion invalidates an argument because if you're having an argument then emotion is the wrong weapon to use. Reason is a sword for the brain, not the heart. Words are maps, not the territory. If you can't work with the maps and use dispassionate logic then you're fighting the wrong battle on the wrong field. You have to fight from strength. It's not about winning every battle, it's about picking and fighting the battles where you have the strength and advantage on your side. If you want to work with feelings and impressions and sympathies then you have to fight on a battlefield where those weapons have the advantage.

On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with improving your weaknesses. If you're wanting to work on weak areas so that you get stronger in those areas that's a good thing. Of course, if you want to improve your reasoning you have to quit disdaining it as being "somebody else's rules," written only for "their" advantage. There's the right tool for the job; nothing else. If you want to take up knife fighting, you learn to use a knife. If you want to use emotion then persuade, inspire, build rapport, develop empathy, inspire anger, provoke revulsion, etc. just don't get drawn into an argument. Emotion works by building sympathy, by attraction or repulsion; reason works by abstraction and detatchment. They're different tools for different jobs.

Words are weapons, sharpen the knives....understanding the principles

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

There's an interesting book that I'm reading called Less Than Words Can Say (http://www.sourcetext.com/grammarian/less-than-words-can-say/index.html) by Richard Mitchell. The complete text is online at that link. It's all about how language is a tool for manipulating abstract ideas and imposing logical analysis on existence around you. Being a writer, I think you might find it interesting.

[heartofawarrior.livejournal.com]

Oh man - I HATE the thing about chivalry rendering null and void all other human rights. I get weird looks from people if I hold the door open for someone, be it another female, or a guy. Since when did common courtesy start defining "masculine" and "feminine"...?

*hands over spatula of smite* Some people just need a good whacking every now and then, I suppose. Have at 'em ;-)

[mousme.livejournal.com]

There are days when I really wish I could just wander around smacking people with a spatula. It would simplify my life considerably. :P

[heartofawarrior.livejournal.com]

Same here. Sometimes words (especially polite, well-formed ones) just don't get through to people ;-)

[chasingthenuns.livejournal.com]

If women have more power, how come we make less money for the same job? And t.v. commercials are that way because they're marketed towards women because they spend more money. But what of the commercials that just use women as objects? Or better yet, use just part of a women's body to sell an object? If you looked at half the magazine advertisements and commercials, most women don't have heads. Last time I checked, every woman has a head.

The door thing? I'm so sick of this argument. Isn't it just polite to hold a door open for somebody no matter what their gender? And most of the women I know don't always want the man to buy them dinner. It's nice to be treated but it's also nice to do the treating.

I also wonder if he knows any men in a good relationship. One where the partners are equal.

I've had that same guilt about not standing up for any kind of hate speech, but the reality is you have to do it your whole life. I can remember arguing with people in 5th and 6th grade. I'm old and sometimes tired of arguing. I really wish feminist wasn't a bad word. I tell people I'm a feminist and I always get, but you're a stay at home mom. I usually just respond with I'm sorry I didn't realize that doesn't qualify me for believing in equal rights no matter who they are.

[mousme.livejournal.com]

Yeah. Being a stay-at-home mom automatically disqualifies you from the ranks of feminism, didn't you know that?

Feminism, contrary to what some may think, is about women taking the place of men and crushing them under their stiletto heels. It's totally not about equality in the workplace or being able to enjoy the same privileges and shoulder the same responsibilities.

If you're not a man-hating ball-crushing lesbian, you're not a real feminist.

/sarcasm

[griffen.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that whole thing about heteronormativity? RIGHT there with you. And I live in a supposedly liberal area, too.

[mousme.livejournal.com]

I seem to spend a lot of time doing "Gay 101" courses off-the-cuff with people who've just never bothered to think about it. I don't mind doing it, but there are days when it just gets wearisome. People won't think about these things unless you push them out of their comfort zone.

The only reason I'm as patient as I am is because for a long time I *was* one of those people. In some cases, I probably still am, but I do try not to be.

[mousme.livejournal.com]

Help! Would you mind helping me explain the concept of privilege (and heteronormativity) to a friend of mine? My words are failing me. :P

http://fearsclave.livejournal.com/720133.html?thread=4858885#t4858885

His question is in good faith, btw. Just in case it's not clear in the text (this is a good RL friend of mine).

[aislingtheach.livejournal.com]

I've provided some links on his page

"Priviledge" is a Gordian Knot of self-contradictions.

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

Strike the root — be an individualist. You don't have to be "a warrior" for your sex, or your gender, if you don't want to be.

"Why is it that women are OBLIGATED to rise to the defense of their gender ... ?"

Why indeed? You are your own unique self, not a thing, a type. Be who you are? Do you seriously think you are going to change "Those Guys"? You're not. Even if it were possible, do you seriously want the job?

Re: "Priviledge" is a Gordian Knot of self-contradictions.

[mousme.livejournal.com]

No, I don't want the job. On the other hand, if I don't do it, who will? If people don't speak up when bullshit like this happens, nothing will ever change. I may not see the full benefits of change in my lifetime, but I know damned well that if we don't try now, then nothing will ever change. Silence is vote for the status quo, no matter how much I may resent having this role "imposed" on me.

It's absolutely my choice to shoulder this responsibility. I just wish there were more than two choices: speak up and bear the burden, or stay silent and accept that nothing will ever change.

[karine.livejournal.com]

...

Me: "Think of it this way. When I ask you what you did this weekend, without hesitation you're going to answer that you went to a restaurant with your husband. Then we might talk about the movie. Never will I question the validity of your married, heterosexual relationship. If you ask me what I did this weekend, and I'm not open about being gay, I have several choices. One is to not answer. Another is to strategically omit my lesbian lover/partner from the conversation, and simply say that I went to a movie. A third is to play the 'pronoun game' and mention the partner but never her name or her gender. The fourth choice is to mention my lover but not mention that we're lovers and act as though she's just a friend. The fifth choice is to out myself."

Coworker: "Wow. I never thought of that before."

This made me think. It made me think hard, and made me have an illumination moment the same way your coworker did, and I'm not ashamed to say I never actually thought about it this way.

However, as I read it, it seemed awfully familiar to me, as something I've dealt with but in a much more minor way -- being a working mother. Having to "come out" and say my kids are in daycare. Or worse, that I kept my oldest in daycare while on maternity leave with my youngest, and the awkward of dealing with people who automatically stamp you with the "you're a bad mother" seal of disapproval.

So I guess I have to say, in a small way, I understand your experience. I can never fully understand it like you, but I have an inkling.

As to how to deal with That Guy... oy. I am getting better at retorting right away, but I still have a lot of times when I ruminate the situation and realize when it's no longer time to say anything what I SHOULD have said. I would like to set people straight, but how do I do it without invalidating THEIR experience? There is no formula, unfortunately. I guess your ease of rhetoric, of defense, will come with practice and experience with dealing with "these guys".

And now I'm thinking -- I just now remembered how it struck me that so many people told me at Comic Con how wonderful it was that a woman was making ways in the comics industry (talking about me) and how "you women artists should really stick together". While I appreciate the sentiment, at the same time the image that came to my mind was one of women ghettoising themselves to draw cartoons. I honestly could not think of a way to respond to that, so I didn't.

So, um... yeah.

[aislingtheach.livejournal.com]

This made me think. It made me think hard, and made me have an illumination moment the same way your coworker did, and I'm not ashamed to say I never actually thought about it this way.

Je suis bien contente de voir que ce moment d'illumination est venu. Je t'avoue par contre que je suis un peu surprise. Je pensais avoir déjà discuté avec toi de ce genre de chose.

Si tu veux avoir une meilleure idée de la dynamique, je te suggère ce lien:

http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~hyrax/personal/files/student_res/straightprivilege.htm

À jeudi :)

[karine.livejournal.com]

Je comprends la dynamique maintenant; c'est sûr que de mon point de vue, l'orientation sexuelle d'une personne ne me dérange pas (ni la race, ni le sexe, etc). Ce qui m'importe, c'est la personne elle-même parce que j'ai appris très jeune à prendre chaque personne individuellement et l'apprécier pour ses qualités. L'illumination vient surtout du fait que malgré le fait que MOI, ça ne me dérange pas, que la plupart des gens que je connais, ça ne les dérange pas, la personne qui n'a pas le privilège ne peut pas prendre la chance que tout le monde comprenne immédiatement le contexte (surtout dans le cas de minorités non-visibles). Pas parce qu'elle peut se faire rejeter... surtout parce que le point de référence n'est pas le même que le pré-établi par défaut. Ça peut ne pas me déranger qu'un interlocuteur soit gai, mais il va tout de même y avoir un moment d'engrenages et de "attends minute" lorsqu'il se mettra à parler de son chum pour que tout à coup ça s'éclaire et que je me dise: "ah, ok!" avant de continuer la conversation.

Et moi, ça ne me dérange peut-être pas, mais la personne sans privilège, elle, ne peut pas savoir ça, et doit faire la danse décrite par Phnee et décider laquelle des 5 directions elle doit prendre à chaque nouvelle rencontre... et ensuite, dépendemment de quelle solution a été prise, refaire la danse avec ces mêmes personnes à chaque conversation, surtout si on ne peut jamais aller avec la cinquième.

[whiskeygirl8.livejournal.com]

I don't do it much at work and when I do it's minor. There is no way for me to do it effectively and not risk getting in trouble. Not at my job. People are too fucking sensitive--and not about the things that matter (such as, you are more likely to have someone be too sensitive about being called out about racist or homophobic shit than someone being "too sensitive" about being the subject of racist or homophobic shit.)

That said, after reading your tangent, I kinda wish you could come work with me. We have two lesbians and two gay men and all four are completely out, with three of them having been out from the day they started working there (well, I'm not sure about Howard because he started long before I did, but he's been out as long as I've been there and that's nearly 10 years.) And no one gives them shit (that I know of) and none of them seem uncomfortable about it at all and talk about it a lot.

And my computer is having a tantrum, so I have to stop now before I throw my keyboard across the room.

I don't know where to begin

[aislingtheach.livejournal.com]

First, I totaly understand the fedupness about seeing that the onus is primarily on women to fight sexism. It's as if we'd have to patiently select one person at a time - without doing it too often because then it would be «feminist» (read extremist) - while men in general can sit back and relax (except for the rare allies).

As for the arguments, here are some thoughts:
1- "The balance of power has shifted. Women are more powerful than men now: look at all the TV commercials in which men are presented as idiots and women have to come to their rescue."

There are two problems with that one:
A) Since very few people really sit down and try to sort out what power is and how it works, it is hard to have a discussion on the matter.
B) We have to figure out WHERE does this «men as idiots» image comes from, WHO uses it, WHOSE use of is backed by more broadcasting power (pouvoir de diffusion), and WHY would some people (Men/Women) use it.

Regarding A - Unless this reflexion is done, people will be prompt to imagine up shadowy and powerful groups/persons like the International Jewry, the Pink money backed gay agenda, the State-backed Feminazism, and even the All Influential Mother and Housewife or the Great Woman Standing Behind the Great Man. A description of how I conceive of power and dominance is in order, but I'm afraid it's going to take too much time to write it here.
Regarding B - For me, it's the funniest thing. The «men as idiots/barbaric/rude/agressive beasts who cannot get a hold of themselves» is primarily a creation of men themselves. And it is primarily men who use this image - and who hold more more broadcasting power to do so (publishing houses, TV networks, Scenarists, Marketers, videomakers, filmakers, record companies, etc. are mainly owned by men and decisions are mainly made by men). Men have used this image over and over again to deny us access to basic rights. When suffragists asked for the right to vote, they were told by men that politics are the realm of men and men are too rude for them. Men then cajoled women into renouncing the right to vote by saying that women were more virtuous then men and that it would sully them (that speaks volumes how they were depicting themselves to women).
Fastforwarding to nowadays, the men as idiots image is fed by the jackass image, which is not a creation of women, but rather the joyful creation of a bunch of men. And when they see or do jackass feats, they certainly are not complaining about feminism and how women pushed them to do so.
My intuition here (but it is yet to be proven), is that some men are complaining about the idiot image in TV commercials not because of the images proper (because they enjoy it in jackass contexts), but because they are reluctant to recognize that women still are affected by sexism to a great extent in commercials. They are aware of the complaints, but they would rather brush them off or come up with some select exemples of men being objectified to say «look, we're equally oppressed» or even «the balance is tiped in your favor».

The very sad part is, this image of «bad but bold/I have no brains and I do stupid things because I'm inherently driven by my penis» is a tool to maintain the status quo.

Argh, that message is getting too long. And it is getting too late for me to continue. But I would love to share my thoughts on the other points pretty soon.

Re: I don't know where to begin

[mousme.livejournal.com]

But I would love to share my thoughts on the other points pretty soon.

I look forward to it!

[aislingtheach.livejournal.com]

Here it is again :)

The concept of privilege mainly evolved out of the grassroots, and it is progressively taking shape. Since it could take me a whole lot of time to write about it, I will rather point out some good sources:

http://brown-betty.livejournal.com/305643.html

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/

And since bringing up the topic of privilege is a highway to people reacting very defensively (and presuming it is all about guilt-triping - which is not, because guilt triping paralyses people, whereas what we need is action), here's a good resource regarding what we can do about privilege:

http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146

I could add other sources, but I will stop for now. I hope this is will be helpful. :)