"Look at Rachel Maddow. She comes at me on the basis of emotion. She demonizes me. I don't want conservatives to win on the basis of emotion. If we lower ourselves to the level they operate on, we hurt ourselves and our arguments."
I happen to think Rachel Maddow's initial response to this is top notch, that being:
I was trying to do my work. But then that pops up in my Google Alert, then I read it and I become alternately so blindingly enraged and then hysterically upset and then inconsolably morose and then hyperactively giddy and then happy and then sad and then mad and then happy again that I couldn't make sense of any of the facts that I was gathering. All of which I was trying to read through the tears of joy and anger and anxiety that I just can't control! Can't you tell I'm falling apart right now? So I promise - hold on, I'm getting emotional about this promise. I promise that tomorrow, I will gather myself and offer a full analysis of today's Tom Coburn news.
But, probably given that Rachel Maddow runs a newsish show where she discusses things that are actually happening out there in the world and then giving her opinion about that stuff, she didn't really delve into what the fuck just happened there. So, being that I don't have a newsish show and just this little blog, I'll do that.
First things first: there is the belief out there that women are emotional. I know, shocker. There is the belief out there that being emotional makes women less capable. Double shocker! There is this belief that by being emotional, women are therefore also irrational. Crazy, right? Who'd ever think that?!
Truth is, I think most people believe that. Maybe not consciously. Maybe not full on, full frontal "woman=emotional=irrational=unreliable=bad! men=logical=rational=reliable=good! men≠women!"
But it is there. And it is there because it is all around us. It is there when we talk about hiring a good worker, or hiring a woman. It was there during the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings, when someone made the comparison between having a heart surgeon who'd had to struggle to get where he is, or the best surgeon one could find, even if that surgeon had been born with a silver spoon in his mouth. The idea that the first (the guy (or girl) who had to work really hard) could beget the second (that guy could be the best because he had to work so hard) is missing.
There's this thing with prejudice - all kinds - that make it hard for those of us who consider ourselves to be good people to recognize it within ourselves. It isn't just that we cognitively know that prejudice is bad and we are good, and thus we can't be prejudiced, though that's definitely a part of it. It is that in order for us to recognize our own prejudices, we have to be able to recognize when our most reflexive thoughts contain prejudice. That's extraordinarily difficult to do. It is incredibly difficult to puzzle out if you find some woman emotional because she is, in fact, being overly emotional - or if it is because we are conditioned to see women as emotional, as attacking on the basis of emotion alone. And when we're confronted about our underlying assumptions, whether by friends or by articles or by blog posts, it is essentially difficult to accept that what this other person is saying may be correct. Because what we thought felt so natural and so right, and what that other person is saying - that calling women you don't know emotional and attacking on the basis of emotion - is both historically and inherently sexist - is so foreign and so obviously wrong. Plus, it probably feels like a personal attack, because you, good person that you are, would never say something prejudiced. Because doesn't that other person know this is just how the world is?
Because of that, I don't think Tom Coburn is consciously eliciting the dog whistle of "women, crazy, huh?" But that doesn't mean his remarks aren't fused with the premise that a woman's actions are borne out of emotionality, and that emotionality is bad. It doesn't mean that he is playing a really old hand of sexism, and it doesn't mean that because he's ignorant of that (because to him it is just true), his remark isn't sexist. It doesn't mean it doesn't play into the grander metanarrative about women, and their intellectual oomph.
13 comments:
Excellent post. Now I'm forced to question my sometimes-held belief that women tend to skew more toward emotional response than rational response when presented with similar situations (compared to men.) I'd normally say that this is A)only true a portion of the time (i.e., there are still plenty of rational women and emotional men), B)possibly a socialized behavior rather than a genetic one, and C) Not always a bad thing. If someone is arguing passionately for a cause or point of view, it can be more persuasive than someone who relies on cold facts alone. Of course, passion is not an excuse to fly in the face of logic, which I gather is what Tom Coburn is accusing Rachel Maddow of doing. I find this accusation bizarre, given Maddow's typical attitude compared to someone like Keith Olbermann's (who seems to get more emotional more often than his prime-time successor!)
Rachel Maddow's response is priceless, by the way. It's to be expected though, as cheerily-delivered biting sarcasm is her stock in trade.
Have there been any credible studies on this? Is there any data that either side can use to bolster their argument (not that the women would, those crazy broads! :p )
I find this accusation bizarre, given Maddow's typical attitude compared to someone like Keith Olbermann's
I was gonna do a compare and contrast; but then I figured, who really needs to? We all know about Olbermann's Worst Person in the World! segment (that I, personally, enjoy). So, obvs, if you're going to make a point about emotionality and demonizing someone, he's totally the person on MSNBC you could target for doing so continuously. Which makes attacking Maddow for being emotional and demonizing people kind of suspect, and twinged my "sexism?" 'dar.
Now I'm forced to question my sometimes-held belief that women tend to skew more toward emotional response than rational response when presented with similar situations
I don't think its an either-or thing. And that's what it often gets boiled down to.
I do urge you to check that response though. Cuz, logic and emotion aren't always ≠!
Have there been any credible studies on this?
Yuppers, there sure have. And at some point, I'll dig them up for ya. But at this moment, it was "post this now, as just my own musings, or never post". Sadly, that means lack of empirical research on the phenomena in post.
Because of that, I don't think Tom Coburn is consciously eliciting the dog whistle of "women, crazy, huh?" But that doesn't mean his remarks aren't fused with the premise that a woman's actions are borne out of emotionality, and that emotionality is bad.
Andrew Sullivan's readers often charge that he is overly emotional and sometimes "moody." Sullivan usually dismisses these ad hominem attacks as some kind of veiled assault on his sexuality. And, in some cases, that may be true.
The problem is that Andrew Sullivan is an extremely emotional writer. He does tend to have very impulsive reactions, and he frequently says things that he regrets or that are just simply irrational.
Sullivan has essentially insulated himself from an important criticism of his writing by insisting that all of his critics are merely homophobes. (I say this as someone who idolizes him.)
I haven't watched Maddow in a very long time, so I can't comment on the legitimacy of Coburn's remarks. But I don't think that we can automatically assume his Coburn's statement is a function of some deep-seated prejudice that we all share. Even if this is the case, Coburn may still be correct.
It's true that women are often (unfairly) stereotyped as being overly emotional but that doesn't necessarly negate this criticism. Rachel Maddow may very well rely heavily on emotionally charged rhetoric, just as I think Keith Olbermann does. This may be a legitimate criticism of her show that should be addressed on its own terms.
I haven't watched Maddow in a very long time, so I can't comment on the legitimacy of Coburn's remarks.
I can. There's really no legitimacy there. She has gone after him living at the C-Street house because if all reports are true, he is paying below market rent. She has talked about his waffling on the whole John Ensign affair.
Sullivan has essentially insulated himself from an important criticism of his writing by insisting that all of his critics are merely homophobes. (I say this as someone who idolizes him.)
Here's a double bind for people who hold privilege (white, cis, hetero, male, able-bodied, etc). The ability to make a true, good-faith critique of a marginalized body is often hampered because of historical and current-day inequalities. But then, that "true, good-faith" argument may actually have some of that privilege wrapped up in it, making one see unconsciously emotionality in a gay man's writings or a woman's commentary much more quickly than you would a white man who had written/said the same thing. Which is one of the ways privilege and prejudice hurt everyone.
Rachel Maddow may very well rely heavily on emotionally charged rhetoric, just as I think Keith Olbermann does.
She doesn't.
I don't think that we can automatically assume his Coburn's statement is a function of some deep-seated prejudice that we all share. Even if this is the case, Coburn may still be correct.
Okay, I'm about to go 101 on you.
Even if a sexist statement proves to be correct in a specific situation, it is still a sexist statement and still has to be addressed as such.
So, if your initial and automatic response is to call a woman out on her emotionality (and thus, her irrationality), and 1 time out of 10, you're right and the woman is overly emotional, that doesn't mean your primary response doesn't need to be critiqued. Because you (universal you) are reacting in a sexist manner. Because that assumption hurts women. And because if your response is to automatically think of women as overly emotional, then the 9 times they were not overly emotional doesn't factor in. That one time is what is going to buoy your own prejudices.
And calling women overly emotional and dismissing them because of that is a very real thing. I happen to believe every single one of us carries around sexist, racist, transphobic, homophobic baggage. I happen to believe that not everyone has the same bag packed, so I may not think a woman is responding on the basis of emotionality off the bat, but I may have that fleeting thought that a girl in a short skirt is obvs a slut. That is my baggage to unpack. Other people have to find their own.
And I do think Coburn's statement is based as much on sexism on anything else, because Maddow operates differently than Olbermann. She gets emotional - ie, she is passionate and she is at times righteously angry - but she doesn't, as a general rule, demonize people. But Coburn has been mentioned on Olbermann's show, and he is hyperbolic and you could look at those statements and go, "Totes demonization going down".
But here's the other thing: Going back to the Sullivan thing, it, at a point, doesn't truly matter if this time Coburn hasn't uttered a remark steeped in sexism, or if this time Coburn is correct. Because it does elicit the head nod from other people - both the people who we would think were sexists and those people who, ya know, think themselves totes enlightened. It is just another drop in the pond of remarks that other people take as true. Because pointing out where this specific remark has sexist roots can just be rationalized or explained.
Which was really the point of this post.
Let me ask this, just to clarify:
Do you think that calling a woman's remarks "emotional" should always be considered a sexist act?
You write,
Even if a sexist statement proves to be correct in a specific situation, it is still a sexist statement and still has to be addressed as such.
That's fair enough. But what if Coburn's statement isn't sexist? It seems as though you're assuming that any statement of this nature that is directed at a woman is the result of conscious or unconscious bias against women.
Since the question is whether Coburns statement was the result of conscious or unconscious bias, this strikes me as begging the question.
You go on to write that this isn't really the point:
at a point, doesn't truly matter if this time Coburn hasn't uttered a remark steeped in sexism, or if this time Coburn is correct. Because it does elicit the head nod from other people - both the people who we would think were sexists and those people who, ya know, think themselves totes enlightened. It is just another drop in the pond of remarks that other people take as true. Because pointing out where this specific remark has sexist roots can just be rationalized or explained.
But here again, your reasoning strikes me as circular - and, also, kind of perilous.
Let me try a little thought experiment to explain what I mean.
What if candidate Obama was not an incredibly eloquent speaker? What if, like President Bush, he could barely formulate a coherent sentence?
Clearly, an ability to communicate well is an essential characteristic of a good president. Criticizing candidate Obama for his lack of eloquence would seem fair. (People on the left certainly made this argument about President Bush, insisting that his inability to speak well was a real problem.)
But, of course, there is an awful lot of racial baggage when you imply that a black candidate is "inarticulate." And even if my remarks are not motivated by racism, racist individuals (and groups) could easily pick up on this criticism and use it to reinforce racial stereotypes.
So, what is the solution? Am I not allowed to argue that candidate Obama's lack of eloquence is a problem without being complicit in this racism?
But what if Coburn's statement isn't sexist?
Let me say this: The statement uses language that has been historically used with a sexist basis, and his use of the idea of emotionality being a bad thing, in reference to a woman who is on the whole not an irrational, emotional figure, is playing directly into that tradition.
But since Maddow is not, typically, crazy emotional and tends to talk about what people did and what they paid rather than who they are, your defense of this as being not sexist holds little weight. As I said, I don't think he said what he said as an intentionally sexist statement. But that doesn't change the fact that it is one. It doesn't change the fact that privileged bodies (all of us) have to take the responsibility to think about whether or not we're playing into an -ist with how we talk about any given situation. Because individual actions and statements do not happen in a void.
It seems as though you're assuming that any statement of this nature that is directed at a woman is the result of conscious or unconscious bias against women.
That's part one. As I said, I don't think you can grow up in this world and not have some -ist ideas internalized. Whether or not you think of yourself as a feminist or an anti-racist, or what-have-you, the process of living in this world means we pick up some crap along the way. Thus, if you see, say, an African-American man walking slowly in front of your car when the light is clearly green, you may unconsciously attribute that action to his race, in a way you would not do so if it were a white man.
But the second part of it is this: if what you're saying bolsters historical and current sexist memes (ie, women are hysterically emotional and irrational), even if you are right in this specific instance, your statement is still part of the pantheon of statements that continue sexist thought. It sucks for those with privilege, because you can't just call out a white woman for being emotional or a black woman for being "angry" or what have you without there being an underlying subtext. It sucks for the white women and black women because, hey, they are seen as emotional and angry in most circumstances even when they're not.
But, of course, there is an awful lot of racial baggage when you imply that a black candidate is "inarticulate."
There's a lot of racist baggage when you call an African American "articulate" as well, because as it was said when the articulate phrase was thrown around Colin Powell, "what, you expected him not to be?"
To Be Cont'd
Cont'd
So, what is the solution? Am I not allowed to argue that candidate Obama's lack of eloquence is a problem without being complicit in this racism?
You're allowed to say anything you wish to, and whoever has a problem with what you said, if they see some racist or sexist bent to it, can call you out on it.
Here's the thing: whatever issues arise from you having to think long and hard about whether or not you (again, universal you) don't find Obama articulate or Maddow rational are less than the issues faced by someone who has had the idea that he is "surprisingly articulate" or that he uses a "teleprompter" or that she is "emotional", and who has that continually thrown at them.
That is the issue facing those with privilege: if you say something, and someone else hears something that could be racist or sexist about it, you could in fact be saying something racist or sexist. And even if you don't think of yourself as sexist or racist, even if you think that is wholly separate from your critique, it may not be. Which was that whole second part of that post: maybe someone around you is seeing something in you you don't see, or don't want to acknowledge. And you have the choice about what to do about that. As a white guy, you can brush that aside with little consequence and go on your merry way calling women "emotional" to your heart's content, and it isn't going to hurt you. But those statements could very well hurt women.
So, it's all about self-awareness and whether or not you want to be an ally to those communities.
Illustration: A while ago, I made a comment on someone's blog. I made use of the word "crutch" as part of a metaphor. That word was removed from my comment by the moderator because it was ablist language.
I could take that, learn from it, and understand that even though I had no intention of being ablist and didn't think I was ablist, there was something about the ability to use that word without even thinking about the alternate meaning that meant I either was ablist or that I was perpetuating ablism separate from my own thoughts and feelings.
Or, I could think the person was being hyper emotional because of course I meant "crutch" only in the metaphorical way I was using it, and how dare anyone who used a crutch or who was sensitive to that particular community's needs point out something I didn't feel needed teh fixin'.
I chose to take the first path, recognize that some of the language I use holds a different and marginalizing meaning than what I intend to get across, and that in using that, I'm contributing to a certain type of social othering. But that's all on me.
If some Coburn out there in the world doesn't want to accept that his language holds a darker meaning, I can't make him see it any differently. If some Coburn out there thinks that there is no way unconscious biases are playing into how he uses language and that he is totes in control of his own faculties and no prejudice could creep in without him recognizing it as such, I can't do anything about it.
To Be Cont'd
Cont'd
But what I can encourage Coburn to do, what I try to do myself, is to make sure that if I call a woman emotional, I'm damn sure she's actually being emotional beyond any acceptable scope. And I understand that in using that language to describe that one woman, I myself am a piece of a cog contributing however unwillingly to the idea that all women are emotional. And there is nothing I or you or Coburn can do to make sure everyone who hears or reads that statement knows that I mean that one woman over there because she totes is.
There is no way to fully remove yourself from the Matrix. There is no way to make sure nothing you say ever has a sexist tint or a racist tint or a homophobic tint or an ablist tint. The only thing you can do is recognize the historical context of your critique about a certain group, think about whether or not that critique is borne from the person being a part of that group, and then really listening to criticisms from that group and its allies after the fact if the first two parts of that equation didn't stop you from saying or doing what you said/did.
That's all, I think, anyone can ever do.
But here again, your reasoning strikes me as circular - and, also, kind of perilous.
Also, this (I know, I've written longer comments than my post, and I'm sorry and I hope you're reading them!).
The reason for this is because, well, this stuff is circular. Some of this stuff is an endless feedback loop, and the most we can try to do is to make that loop as weak as we possibly can. It's like all social questions in that regard. Because the loop is so intricate and so big, it feeds upon itself. And that's why these issues can't be easily or quickly dealt with.
So, saying that this reasoning is circular kind of hits it on the head - it is because it is circular that makes it so difficult to pinpoint and or prescribe actions to mitigate it.
But since Maddow is not, typically, crazy emotional and tends to talk about what people did and what they paid rather than who they are, your defense of this as being not sexist holds little weight.
I'm not really interested in defending Coburn or examining Maddow's statements. Like you, I don't think the specifics of ths case really matter. What concerns me is the broad principle that you've laid out with regard to "bias."
I agree that people should reflect on their own (conscious or unconscious) biases. You pointed out that you've used bias language in the past, and you've come to realize that this language is problematic. That's admirable.
But bias against the disadvantaged isn't the only kind of bias. In fact, your recognition (and elevation) of this bias is a reflection of the political biases, which - consciously or unconsciously - influence your perception of reality.
Political bias colors our perception of other kinds of bias - and may lead you or me to think that certain kinds of biases are more prevelant or more serious than others.
How do we ajudicate between these competing political biases? I'm not sure. But considering your argument, I think it's a bit hypocritical to simply substitute your ideological priors for reality.
You write:
The reason for this is because, well, this stuff is circular. Some of this stuff is an endless feedback loop, and the most we can try to do is to make that loop as weak as we possibly can. It's like all social questions in that regard. Because the loop is so intricate and so big, it feeds upon itself. And that's why these issues can't be easily or quickly dealt with.
I absolutely agree. Your argument is circular largely because you base your reasoning on certain premises that are simply unprovable. I do, too.
The big question is: Shouldn't you at least try to examine your own biases here? As you said, "maybe someone around you is seeing something in you you don't see, or don't want to acknowledge."
Maybe people have more independence of thought - and less prejudicial motivations - than you want to believe because it contradicts your worldview to believe this.
Maybe people have more independence of thought - and less prejudicial motivations - than you want to believe because it contradicts your worldview to believe this.
OR, and I know this is a crazy thought, but bear with me here:
I believe that people's levels of independence of thought vary from person to person, and issue to issue.
What you are ascribing to me is a fundamentally black-and-white view of the world. I don't have that.
I don't think every single person is sexist in the same way, or racist in the same way, or homophobic in the same way. But I do think that even if someone is really, really not sexist, they can still be racist. And I think that even the most independence of mind and thought person has a sexist or racist thought meander across his mind every once in a while.
Also, I find the people who think they are totally in the free and clear in the way of being influenced by society and are totally in the independent of thought category because they're enlightened or what-have-you are suspect. Because how would you know?
I do think that if someone is really, really not sexist, they can still make a statement that plays into sexist memes.
So, in that way, it doesn't matter if you personally are of independent mind and completely unprejudiced. Because you, as a living, breathing person in the world, live in a time and place that historically has and continues to have inequities relating to things like class and race and gender and weight and sexual orientation.
So, if you or Coburn or anyone else is truly not sexist, if you say, "That woman is emotional, and thus her opinion is rendered mute", you are playing into a really, really old game that's still current.
And that is a living, breathing part of the problem.
Another really big part of the problem are people who may be steeped in using sexist tropes (even if they aren't TEH SEXIST themselves) thinking that because they are of such independent minds, they don't acknowledge their positions when they're called out on it. And who won't think, "Oh, just because I'm such an independent thinker doesn't mean that what I say doesn't normalize the sexist thoughts of those other, not quite on my independent thought scale".
Really, though, I don't think we can tell if you're right, and we're all independent of thought and those of us who are like, "sexism is a part of every one of us" are wrong, or if the people who are like, "we are swimming in a culture that privileges certain bodies over others and we are all informed by that culture" are right. I don't think it matters. It doesn't matter if you are totes not sexist and I'm totes not ablist. What matters is what our actions and words do to those around us, and what kind of world they perpetuate.
The big question is: Shouldn't you at least try to examine your own biases here? As you said, "maybe someone around you is seeing something in you you don't see, or don't want to acknowledge."
Also, I'm going to just say this:
I examine my biases constantly. My constant examination of my biases lead me in an ever-more liberal direction. Please, please don't make the assumption or assertion that I do not do this.
Because, well, I have not made that assertion about you. If I think you're biased, I'll tell you. I'll point out specifically where I think you fail at that particular subject. And if you think I'm biased about something, point it out, preferably with examples. But don't tell me to "at least try to examine your own biases here". Because (a) wow, and (b) I do. I wouldn't respond to you if I didn't. I wouldn't write a response to you LONGER THAN MY BLOG POST if I wasn't seriously engaging with what you are talking to me about.
On the other hand, if you are asking me questions to lead me to a "Gotcha" moment, I'm going to have to ask you to just not do that.
But considering your argument, I think it's a bit hypocritical to simply substitute your ideological priors for reality.
Oh, and this:
What I'm advocating is for the listening of people who are affected by your words and deeds, and recognizing that you may not always be right or in the right (again, universal you). In most places, that is simply considered good manners, and not a hypocritical stance.
But if you really think I'm a hypocrite on this point, I do have to ask for some more detail than this. Because I can't properly assess my level of hypocriticaldom with what you've detailed above.
Post a Comment