|
Hello, Family Scholars Blog (FSB) readers! I’d like to begin by thanking Elizabeth for inviting me to guest post. Although I don’t comment too often here, I am a regular reader of FSB and appreciate many of the conversations the articles inspire.
As a blog for the Institute for American Values (IAV), which tends to lean against supporting marriage equality for same-sex couples, it is a gracious and trusting act to give me, a feminist, lesbian blogger who supports marriage equality, a voice here. (I guess this is a good place to mention, in case it’s not clear, that the IAV doesn’t necessarily endorse what I write here, and nor do I necessarily endorse the opinions of IAV or any other FSB blogger). I also appreciate the opportunity to interact with folks like David Blankenhorn, Maggie Gallagher (who shows up occasionally), and many of you all about contentious issues in the comment threads. I don’t always agree with people here, but as far as the Internet goes, I’ve found FSB to be a relatively civil forum where many people try to rise above treating “the other side” like ridiculous caricatures. In allowing comments, I think most of the moderators try to be fair and strike that difficult-to-find balance between keeping people safe from hostility while allowing all kinds of opposing viewpoints. With that being said, I’d like to jump right in and open up a conversation about civility, particularly in “mixed company.” (Oh, this is also a good place for me to mention that I do not think I’m perfect, or have been perfect, in the civility department on the Internet. I think an important part of an honest conversation about civility is owning our own capacity for hostility and aggression. In conversations, I have had opportunities to stop cycles of aggression that I did not take, choosing instead to take the easy road of reacting to aggression with further aggression.) I think, generally, when one sees oneself as a victim or part of an oppressed class, it can be difficult to simultaneously see oneself as an agent of aggression or incivility. When thinking of the Gay Culture Wars in particular, and by that I mean the opposing views that homosexuality is immoral/unhealthy/deviant versus the notion that it is not, I have seen people on both sides adopt an “I’m a victim of [circle one: anti-LGBT bigots or secular homosexualists] therefore I’m incapable of hurting anyone” mentality. I don’t intend to imply that Both Sides Are Just As Bad, for I certainly have my own view about which side is more powerful and aggressive. Yet, I do think many LGBT advocates let ourselves and each other off the hook too easily for engaging in incivility against anti-equality advocates under the reasoning that “they started it, they’re mean to us, they deserve it.” I advocate for a greater awareness for how such a view not only disrespects the human dignity of others, but is detrimental to our advocacy. At one popular gay blog, for instance, a writer ridiculed Michelle Bachmann’s outfit and made a “joke” about her husband (spoiler alert!) not being gay. When several commenters, jumped in to say that such attacks are out of line, some people reasoned that she deserved it because of her anti-gay opinions and that it was just “harmless” fun. As I looked at the blogger’s short post, I kept thinking, how might a conservative woman who opposes LGBT rights read his “joke”? Would she be more or less likely to reconsider her views on homosexuality? I also find it problematic that the prominent Dan Savage, a gay man who founded a popular anti-bullying campaign, makes it clear through other campaigns he has founded that it is okay, actually, to bully some people. Sure, chalk these up as “harmless” jokes, but are they really “harmless” to the people on the receiving end of them? Of course not, and that’s the point. And sure, some of the people harmed by this bullying are bullies to LGBT people. But, if a person already believes that LGBT people are evil villains, don’t these irrelevant personal attacks only further cement that view? These personal attacks are mostly venting that appeals only to those who already agree with us about LGBT rights. They further polarize the opposition. Looking at those who oppose LGBT equality, attorney Chuck Cooper argued during the Prop 8 trial that it would be a “slur” on the 7 million Californians who voted on the ban on marriage licenses for same-sex couples to suggest that they had anti-gay, bigoted reasons for doing so. Sure, I would concede that some people might have (or think they have?) civil reasons for opposing equality, and yet how might the words and actions of certain groups, commentators, and activists further cement the view that, yes, actually lots of people <i>really do</i> have anti-gay, bigoted reasons for opposing marriage equality? I’m reminded of Stacy, a Catholic blogger who wrote an infamous post about the horrors of having to live in a society where same-sex couples show non-sexual affection with one another in public spaces. I’m reminded of articles that refer to representation of gay and lesbian characters, people like me, in the media as an infection that ought to be staunched and avoided. I’m reminded of some of the commenters who congregate at the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) blog and call equality advocates names like “marriage corruption vandals” while referencing the so-called “homosexual manifesto”- as though LGBT people are a monolithic group who are all in on a nefarious plot to ruin society. I question whether those who agree with such viewpoints have an accurate understanding of how, to many LGBT people, such statements are not at all harmless and are, to us, actually quite hostile. With such an understanding, they might better understand LGBT people’s accusations of anti-gay bullying and bigotry. It’s an understanding that is sorely lacking, as some opponents of LGBT equality consider it to be “mean,” “bullying,” or “a silencing tactic” when equality advocates call them bigots or bullies for such statements.
Regardless of whether one sees that hostility oneself, or views it as PC Gone Too Far whining, perhaps it can be useful for such people to wonder how posting such articles might further cement the “other side’s” notion that those who oppose marriage equality or LGBT representation in the media actually <i>are</i> anti-gay bigots?
What do you all think? |
Categories: Civil Society
Have you seen anyone here referring to Ann Coulter by the offensive term you quoted? There’s posters here that I know would not let that stand unchallenged. If you are asking, in general, whether I think that is unacceptable and should be condemned, of course I do – and do condemn it when somebody says it in my hearing or at a blog I comment on. Bigotry is not acceptable.
Plenty of people thought it was offensive when gay people simply stopped hiding that they were gay. Was it important to stop offending them then? It’s easy to offend a bigot. Just treat people equally.
Jeffrey,
I called your comment sexist because it was sexist. I didn’t call you sexist. That I am a professed feminist doesn’t somehow make it okay to say sexist things to me or characterize my being assertive as having a “gendered conversational style” that’s “uncivil.”
Under your logic, it would be okay to say homophobic things to a gay person, as long as that gay person put their sexual orientation out there. I can hear it now, “The way you argue is so gay. What? You’re the one who said you’re gay.” It’s just absurd.
And, really isn’t Jeffrey’s remark illustrative of what happens in these debates? A few people here have claimed that they Totally Oppose Bigotry And Sexism And Everything, but we can’t even call sexism sexism on our own side without our “allies” calling it “uncivil” and accusing us of “shutting down conversations.”
I’m just not convinced that many gay rights advocates are that concerned about -isms other than homophobia. They make that evidently clear in the majority of conversations women, feminists, racial minorities, bisexuals, and members of other oppressed groups suggest that, say, a gay man is saying problematic things.
David,
I would agree that Mont grossly mischaracterizes King and Gandhi’s advocacy when he calls it “bullying.” Although, it’s an interesting claim in light of other people’s conviction here that bullying is only done by the more powerful against the less powerful…..
Ledasmom,
“Have you seen anyone here referring to Ann Coulter by the offensive term you quoted?”
I’m not going to keep belaboring this. I have seen, in other forums, the offensive slur used by gay men and I saw it go unchallenged. When I have tried to challenge it, and other forms of sexism, I am usually told to “get over myself” and to basically stop causing trouble because the Real Issue is homophobia. (See also, my conversation with Jeffrey).
I never claimed that people here use the term. They might, but I haven’t seen it. My point is that it happens, even among LGBT advocates who consider themselves tolerant and progressive and that we need to call it out when it happens.
[Your replies suggest, to me, that you might not be reading my posts (or other people’s) very well. ]
This reply suggests that you really don’t want to debate the issues you are raising. You wrote a long detailed post criticizing me on a number of issues and I responded at length and in detail. Your response is to address one issue in that post. Not only that you assign me a view that I don’t hold. Then you use that view to dismiss me.
[I specifically said that my hypothetical wasn't’t intended as a parallel to the Savage/Santorum situation and yet you quickly dismiss my hypothetical because it’s not a parallel to the Savage/Santorum situation.]
I saw not point in your hypothetical if it didn’t mirror Savage’s attack on Santorum. However, I was clear that I would not support your feminists response because it attacked gay man as a gay man.
[Fixating on defending Dan Savage,]
This is a personal attack you are using to dismiss my point. You are proposing that gender equality advocates give up mockery, snark and righteous anger as tools in their battle for equality. I think that would be I mistake. Dan Savage is only relevant in so far as he uses these tools effectively and I would argue ethically.
[you’I've remained resoundingly silent when I've recounted instances of members of the LGBT community/liberals/progressives calling Ann Coulter a “hot tranny mess,” mocking Maggie Gallagher’s looks, and making fun of Michelle Bachmann’s outfits.]
This is another attempt to attack me and undermine my point. The use of ‘resoundingly silent’ implies that I am somehow dishonestly avoiding these examples.
[Can we agree that such things are out of line, sexist/transphobic, and counter-productive?]
No we can’t. We can debate specific attacks on these women and agree or disagree on whether they are appropriate. If you want to provide links I would be pleased to do that.
[Or, do you claim a special privilege to act out your “righteous anger” against these women?]
This is yet another personal attack. I have been civil in our discussion and in every discussion I have on this forum and every other. I don’t generally engage with people who are not civil, because they are mostly trolls and not interested in debate. Argument and invective are not synonyms.
And in all this back and forth you have still not answered my main point. How does the strategy you are suggesting we adopt benefit cause we are defending? How will it help us succeed in achieving civil and human rights for people like you and Christopher? What other movements have succeed without these tools?
apropos of just about everything:
#5. We’re Not Programmed to Seek “Truth,” We’re Programmed to “Win”
Oh, I’d agree with that. I’d also argue that many feminist and lesbians attempt to shut down conversation by screaming “sexist” the loudest, while exhibiting gendered conversational styles that are shaming and scolding. My point is that it is interesting that you have taken a very high moral ground on what is civil and uncivil, yet your own blogging stye is very scolding and prone to making accusations to shut down criticism.
Mont,
Like I said before, your replies to me suggest that you might not be closely reading my comments.
Your latest comment ordered me to explain how my strategy will work, but in a previous comment, I already suggested 2 books you could read that I believe are good starting points for people not familiar with the use of non-violence and civil disobedience and how such stategies have worked in the past for other movements.
I’m not intending to “personally attack” you, I’ve just been recounting what I see happening in this conversation. And, in fact, I believe it was you whose very first comment on this thread accused me of “concern trolling,” followed closely by an accusation that the “opposite side” of this “non-debate” consists of inhuman monsters “who will not be moved by [my] pain.”
You then accused me of “not really making an argument,” when, in fact, I have been by any definition of what constitutes an argument.
So yeah, I get it. You see yourself as a victim of repeated and unfair “personal attacks” at my hands. Yet, I also am not convinced you have a very realistic assessment of “the opposite side,” let alone the efficacy of using hostility, bullying, and aggression for political purposes.
Fannie, thanks for opening this can of worms.
Count me among those who think it’s more important to remain civil than to win, but I realize that I am not on the outside of the status quo. I don’t begrudge the sense of urgency that someone who can’t marry might feel.
I am reminded of an important essay by Jonathan Rauch that, to the best of my knowledge, never made it to a post on this blog: Majority Report.
. . . we—gay Americans and our straight allies—have won the central argument for gay rights. As a result, we must change. Much of what the gay rights movement has taken for granted until now, and much that has worked for us in the past, is now wrong and will hurt us. The turn we now need to execute will be the hardest maneuver the movement has ever had to make, because it will require us to deliberately leave room for homophobia in American society. We need to allow some discrimination and relinquish the “zero tolerance” mind-set. Paradoxical but true: We need to give our opponents the time and space they need to let us win.
Here’s the part that really fits this thread:
Majority support does not necessarily make the “all accelerator, no brakes” approach ineffective, but it does change the cost-benefit calculation. Pushing on every front at once is no longer cost-free. Far from it: To the public, a shrill, aggressive majority appears bullying and menacing, not plucky and righteous. Worst of all, it looks oppressive.
There’s an important distinction that some people here are missing.
My definition of incivility is a statement that is sexist, homophobic, transphobic, racist, and bullying.
What I hear Jeffrey saying is that it hurts his feelings to have a sexist statement he made called “sexist.” It has never been my position that any statement that hurts a person’s feelings is uncivil. That would be absurd, and no oppressed group could ever fight for their rights without being labeled as hostile bullies.
Jeffrey’s behavior here is the perfect example of a Tone Argument, where a person’s assertive statement is mischaracterized as “hostile” or “uncivil.” It’s incredibly similar to when people who are genuinely anti-gay bigots call it “mean” and “rude” when their bigotry is called.
Can we agree that isn’t a universal definition of incivility, which is probably why people aren’t clicking with your approach? I appreciate you own that definition, but I think that’s the point of confusion since it is a unique definition that isn’t shared by others.
By the way, my feelings weren’t hurt. I’m comfortable with having my comments defined as “sexist” because I understand what the goal of that accusation is. My feelings aren’t hurt by how you treat others and I’m not sure their feelings are hurt either. Instead, I’m just pointing out that shaming and scolding are contradictory to many people’s definition of civility and do represent a communication approach that is counterproductive.
Or, Jeffrey, maybe it’s because your comments were sexist. Don’t like the tone of Fannie’s argument? Then fine, object to it, but to relate it to her being female is uncalled for.
I’ll concede they could be perceived as sexist. That wasn’t my intent, but I know that intent doesn’t really matter here. So now that we are done with the namecalling and shaming and attempting to shut down dissent, can we talk about the very gendered approach to this topic and the use of a very gendered language and approach in defining “uncivil” and handling dissent and disagreement?
“Gendered” as in what one gender or another is socialized to consider appropriate – that might be an interesting discussion, though it is probably up to Fannie whether it goes too far afield (I am also unclear as to whether the 3-comment rule is now only invoked in cases of obvious abuse). I would say it is true that the tendency is for women to be socialized to avoid conflict, but I would hesitate to attribute any particular behavior by any particular woman to gender on that account. Object to the behavior, not the gender, that is.
The problem is that you can be seen as countering one tone argument (not civil enough) with another tone argument, which may not be productive.
Jeffrey,
Don’t assume bad faith.
When I called your statement sexist, which it was even if you had the most noble intent ever, it wasn’t my intent to “shame you” or “silence” you. My accusation really is as simple as not appreciating having my statements marginalized and dismissed solely because I’m a woman and you don’t seem to like that I’ve taken an assertive tone in this conversation.
It’s interesting that you claim that my goal here has been to “shut down dissent.” As Ledasmom alludes (and thanks for being the only person in this thread to ask about the rule, LOL), I’ve let everyone skirt the 3-comment rule, precisely because I’ve been trying to foster and open conversation about something I think is important.
Anyway, I’m sensing a (dare I say?) sexist approach you are taking with respect to the civility issue. You seem to be opening the door to characterizing my definitions of civility as “female,” “feminist,” or “feminine.” Yet, my “gendered approach,” as you call it, to this conversation comes from reading the works primarily of men- including Marting Luther King, Richard Gregg, and Gandhi.
I would suggest that you re-read my post. My approach isn’t about “scolding” people or shaming people or shutting down debate. Although, those are interesting claims in light of my advocacy for greater civility. It seems almost like an admission that some people won’t be able to participate in a conversation if their words are accurately called hostile, uncivil, or sexist.
I also very clearly said that I know I haven’t been perfect with respect to civility in my blogging. So, my point isn’t to play “gotcha” with other people, like Dan Savage, who have been less than perfect btu who advocate against bullying. If a person has to be a perfect paragon of civility in order to advocate for civility, no person alive would have the moral authority to say we should be more civil.
Instead, my intent was to ask: (a) is hostility effective on either side of a debate?; (b) how does hostility alienate us from the opposition?; and (c) how might hostility further ingrain in the opposition that we are evil monsters?
Knock yourself out calling people names and making personal attacks if that’s your “gendered way” of communicating, but come back and let us know in a few years how that works out for you and how many minds you’ve changed.
[I’ve studied King and Gandhi pretty carefully, as I’m sure you have too, and I think that glibly describing the movements they led as examples of “bullying” and of using ugly uncivil tactics in a sort of means justify the ends way (which is the way I view Fannie as talking about the topic) is a gross misrepresentation both of them as individual social change leaders and, more generally, of the movements they so ably led.]
So are you arguing that King & Gandhi did not use tactics that would fit into Fannie’s definition of bullying? The tactics both men used, while non-violent, were not civil. Both aimed to destabilize the state and cast their enemies as monsters, engaged in monstrous oppression. Both men used the unspoken threat of mob violence to bolster that case. Fannie cites this movement as the foundation for her argument for civility and defends her argument on the basis of the success of these and other movements. I dispute that argument by pointing out that non-violent protest movements actually include quite a lot of bullying.
As to the ends justifying the means, I object to that characterization. I have never argued that and am not arguing it here. I am arguing with Fannie’s idea that all bullying and uncivil behavior is bad. It’s not.
Mont,
Have you read King’s writings on non-violence?
One of the first sentences in “The Power of Non-Violence” is:
“Another thing that we had to get over was the fact that the nonviolent resister does not seek to humiliate or defeat the opponent but to win his friendship and understanding.”
The starting presumption is that the enemy is not a monster. As it so happened, King’s “enemies” often demonstrated their monstrosity by attacking non-violent protestors, which began to turn the tide of public opinion away from King’s “enemies.”
King didn’t have to turn his opponents into monsters, because his opponents transformed themselves into monsters for him.
And, with all due respect, I’m not sure you’re characterizing my alleged definitions of bullying and civility, or my arguments concerning them, correctly.
Jeffrey, let me say that Fannie is, imo, correct in her disagreement with you. Criticizing what someone says in a political debate is not saying “listen to mommy.” To characterize Fannie’s criticism of Mont’s post that way, is obviously sexist.
(You tried to defend this by suggesting it had to do with Fannie being a feminist. But I’m a feminist, and often identify as a feminist; yet no one accuses me of saying “listen to mommy,” because I’m a guy.)
And criticizing a sexist statement — which is NOT the same as saying that the speaker is sexist, btw — is not uncivil. Nor is it shutting down conversation.
Civility does not require us to never criticize what other people write. It means treating people as if they have worth and value, even while disagreeing with them. That’s how Fannie has treated both you and Mort in this conversation.
[Both aimed to destabilize the state and cast their enemies as monsters, engaged in monstrous oppression. Both men used the unspoken threat of mob violence to bolster that case.]
Mont, I must say, with respect, that these assertions about King and Gandhi are, in my view, completely and totally false. King, about whom I know more, emphatically and throughout his life criticized as both immoral and ultimately ineffective exactly the tactics that you now, after his death, ascribe to him. Good grief.
David Blankenhorn,
There are a lot of assumptions packed into your response to the questions in my comment. I can understand why what I said might make you feel defensive, but perhaps you can see how, in my view, the questions I asked were perfectly reasonable?
What I interpret your parenthetical remark to mean is that you want to be applauded for acknowledging, in the abstract, that anti-gay bigotry exists, and that some people who oppose SSM engage in anti-gay bigotry.
But your specific statement was “The main failure on my side of this issue has been our failure to recognize and condemn anti-gay bigotry, both historically and currently[...]” I happen to agree with you, though I might phrase it as “a main failure on your side of this issue…”
However, in your comment, you did not recognize nor condemn any actual instances of anti-gay bigotry, and when I asked if you have done so or would like to do so, you lashed out at me.
It appears to me that, on the one hand, you feel you deserve to be lauded for acknowledging, in the abstract, that anti-gay bigotry has occurred. But now you introduce the word “homophobic” and attribute it to me. Well, which is it, David? Have homophobic statements, arguments, or actions occurred, or is it all in my head?
Your statement was that your side has failed to “recognize and condemn” anti-gay bigotry. The implication is that it is a good thing to recognize and condemn such behavior. So I find it awfully weird that now you are acting like I’m being unfair to you, like how dare I ask you to actually identify a single instance in the history of the Family Scholars Blog where any individual blogger has engaged in the kind of bigotry that you yourself just mentioned.
It is possible that, here on Family Scholars, no blogger has ever said something that you might interpret as bigoted. Is that what you believe? If so, you are free to say so.
It is also possible, and I think more likely, that social pressure and peer pressure make it very difficult for you to “call out” another blogger. In spite of what you may think, I believe it is more difficult for most people to “recognize and condemn” unacceptable behavior on the part of their friends, at the time that it happens, than in their own personal history.
Is it your opinion that you have confessed your own serious and personal shortcomings with regard to this debate? Because you didn’t. You acknowledged that bigotry, hypothetically, exists within the anti-SSM movement.
A reasonable response from me would be to acknowledge that, within the pro-SSM movement, there are those who care more about what legal SSM represents than they do about the nuts and bolts of actually getting married. It’s a step forward for gay rights, but it is easier to argue about the specific financial and government-imposed harms of not being able to marry than it is to argue about what a change in the cultural view of gay people has meant, and will mean, for an historically oppressed minority like us.
That’s because your approach to debate isn’t gendered in the same way it is for Fannie. Maybe that’s because you are a guy or maybe it’s because you are aware of what you are doing. It seems that if a blogger insists in using her feminism as part of her blogging agenda and identity, then we are opening the door to talking about how debate on the internet is often gendered and that just as male bloggers are often bullying and direct, female bloggers are often mommying and passive-agressive. If we can identify that in men on the Internet–and that is one of the underlying assumptions in Fannie’s post–then shouldn’t be talk about how women undermine civility by their gendered behavior.
Fannie has insisted that some of the problems with discourse in the LGBT community can be laid at the feet of gay men, which I would agree with. But if that is going to be part of the narrative, let’s also talk about the role of “mommy says no” and passive-agressive discourse also creates serious problems.
Jeffrey,
Your statement is incredibly sexist. Patently so.
I contend that you view me as taking a “gendered approach” to conversation/blogging only because you know I’m a woman. And, you’re using that knowledge to dismiss my arguments as a “mommy says so” tactic when, if my exact same arguments were made by a man, you’d likely view them as objective and un-gendered.
Not only do you accuse me of “gendering” my approach to argumentation, you denigrate female bloggers as “mommying” and “passive-aggressive.”
My conversations with you have been direct and assertive- pretty much the opposite of “passive-aggressive.” In fact, my primary criticism of some of the sexist gay male bloggers I’ve interacted with is that they’ve been passive-aggressive, rather than direct and assertive. It just hasn’t been my experience that the flaws you’re talking about follow a gendered pattern.
Indeed, instead of holding your hands and keeping the kid gloves on, I have been pretty much the opposite of “mommying” while engaging you and nearly every other commenter in this conversation. Your main objection seems to be that I’m criticizing men while being female.
FYI, I ran my blogpost through The Gender Genie, and based on my communication style, it predicted that I was male.
And, honestly, in my professional writing, I have never received the criticism that my writing or communication style is too “gendered” (ie- “female”). In fact, I usually receive the feedback that I could stand to be more stereotypically feminine and emotional.
So yeah. I think your arm-chair assessment of my blogging style is inaccurate and out of line. Don’t keep making this personal. Stick to the arguments being made, not the person making the arguments.
And, I’m certainly not going to apologize if it makes you feel like bad, scolded little boy to be told that your statements are sexist.
[Instead, my intent was to ask: (a) is hostility effective on either side of a debate?; (b) how does hostility alienate us from the opposition?; and (c) how might hostility further ingrain in the opposition that we are evil monsters?]
To break this out.
Hostility is certainly effective on the other side of the debate. When Ann Coulter calls Al Gore a total fag it is effective. When Senator Michele Bachmann says “If you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement.” It is effective. When Maggie Gallagher says that granting gender equality will destroy marriage, civil liberties and religious freedom, it is effective. These attacks are effective because they promote fear. They are effective because they identify gender equality advocates as scary dangerous people out to destroy civilization as we know it. Mocking and insulting these people is certainly a valid and effective response.
How does hostility alienate us from the opposition? As I said before there is no argument you can make, no pain you and yours might suffer that will sway these people. Ann Coulter has said repeatedly that you (as a liberal) are a treasonous terrorist that should be physically intimidated due to your disloyalty to the country. Michele Bachman thinks you are in the thrall of Satan and Maggie Gallagher thinks your out to destroy the entire country and contaminate good Christian children. Why do you think any thing you do will change this? Why do you think mocking and insulting them is a bad idea?
As for your final point – If you want them to not consider you a monster it is pretty cleat what you have to do. Stop being gay and give up your quest for equal rights. Short of that they will consider you a monster whether you mock and insult them or not.
I don’t feel bad or scolded. If the Internet says you have a male style of writing, who am I to argue with an authority like that. Im a sexist for po
Indeed, Jeffrey.
Unlike your sexist pontifications, the internet’s Gender Genie is based on actual research regarding gendered communication.
Do they also evaluate how one responds to questioning and debate? It’s one thing to evaluate narrative, another to examine conversation and dialogue.
I’d like to seek permission to go beyond the three-post limit, if that’s okay.
Jeffrey, I think that you are conflating at least three different things with your use of the term “gendered” in reference to arguments.
1) Use of one’s own gender to make a point (“As a woman, I believe that…”)
2) Use of examples from one’s life experience which happened because of gender (“When men are making catcalls when I walk down the street…”)
3) Use of language, rhetorical devices, or tone that you associate with feminine/female/gendered behavior (…?)
Your reliance on #3 is what is most problematic, I think. You’re relying on sexist stereotypes. Even if you can cite scholarly peer-reviewed studies that women tend to do this and men tend to do that, you’re still being sexist by painting an entire group based on a statistical likelihood.
When someone accuses you of being sexist, it is possible that they are being unfair. It is also possible that you are being sexist. Note that your emotional response, and likely verbal response, will be the same regardless of which scenario is currently occurring. I suggest that you step back, realize that you are, in fact, being sexist, and consider that in the future when you’re tempted to make these arguments.
I agree with the oft-stated sentiment that a lot of this depends on your definition of bullying, and I think that our collective rush (as a culture/society/movement, whatever) to demonize bullying, without first trying to come to a consensus about what that word actually means, is going to end badly.
What we’re talking about here, generally, is communication, and a lot of us seem to be making the assumption that the audience for most of this communication is “the other side,” the people we are debating. I don’t think that’s accurate. When Rick Santorum compared loving same-sex relations to man-on-dog sex, he wasn’t trying to persuade gay men and women to abstain, or to become straight. He was trying to appeal to what he perceived to be his base. When Dan Savage held a contest to redefine Santorum’s name, he wasn’t trying to persuade Rick Santorum to change his views on legal sodomy*. He was sending a message to everybody else, that Rick Santorum is a joke. Rick Santorum’s views are so beyond the pale, that mention of his name should always, always lead people to laugh.
His audience wasn’t Rick Santorum, and it wasn’t Rick Santorum’s direct supporters. It was everybody else, the peanut gallery. Not the “undecided,” so much as people who haven’t really thought or cared much about it. This debate, like nearly all debates, was not an argument. It was, and is, a show. One way to put on a good show is to make logical, clear claims and support them with evidence. Some of your audience will appreciate that. But not all of them.
Savage’s theater, with regard to Santorum, was effective. Savage sent the message that Rick Santorum’s extreme views are not acceptable, and that Rick Santorum is not someone worth listening to. Could he have achieved this in another way? Perhaps. But that he did it by making a joke and a cultural meme is not, in my view, automatically unacceptable behavior. I think that humor is, and can be, effective, especially when it’s funny. Your view seems to be that no one, anywhere, ever, deserves what Rick Santorum got. I think the real point that Savage made had nothing to do with the content of his exchanges with Santorum. The point that Savage made was that people like Rick Santorum actually do deserve what is coming to them.
That point cannot be made through civil discourse. As such, although I think you perceive yourself to be policing tone and style of rhetoric, you are in fact policing content. If one believes that Rick Santorum deserves to be a laughingstock, the only way to effectively make that point is to make a laughingstock of Rick Santorum.
*(I want to reiterate that Rick Santorum’s comments about “man on dog” sex were not made in reference to same-sex marriage. I think a lot of people forget that–Santorum was talking about Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court decision that found that the state does not have the right to criminalize gay sex. Rick Santorum believes that people should go to prison for having consensual, loving, adult gay sex. Prison. That is what he was saying.)
[I must say, with respect, that these assertions about King and Gandhi are, in my view, completely and totally false. King, about whom I know more, emphatically and throughout his life criticized as both immoral and ultimately ineffective exactly the tactics that you now, after his death, ascribe to him. Good grief.]
I am not arguing rhetoric. Both men had theories of non-violent protest that they expressed eloquently. However neither man achieved their goals on rhetoric alone. They achieved their goals by putting massive numbers of people into the street. They triumphed by showing their governments that the cost of giving them what they wanted was less then the cost of suppressing them. When hundreds of thousands of people take to the street they are bullying the government, whether they are violent or not. The inference is – we are peaceful today, tomorrow may be another story. Without this threat, neither King nor Gandhi would have been successful.
Interestingly, The Gender Genie thinks Jeffrey’s comment (posted 11.02.2011 at 3:56 PM) was written by a female.
Mont,
I appreciate that you answered the questions I’ve raised.
“Hostility is certainly effective on the other side of the debate. When Ann Coulter calls Al Gore a total fag it is effective.”
Is it, though? Effective to who?
When Coulter calls Gore a fag, she certainly doesn’t win over any LGBT people to her side. When her like-minded cohorts chuckle at her “joke,” and when those who oppose SSM remain silent about such slurs, she’s certainly not effective in convincing us that her side isn’t composed of anti-gay monsters. She doesn’t effectively convince us that people who oppose SSM and equality are not bigots.
I think Bachmann and Coulter are fringe and, among the general public, their type of vitriol doesn’t play well.
However, I do agree that some of the fears Maggie Gallagher creates are effective. She’s not the type who would call a gay person a fag, and so I think her arguments are more palatable to people who oppose LGBT rights and who also want to think of themselves as non-bigoted.
Where she’s less effective is that, even if she were to win and somehow get marriage amendments passed in every state, her victory would be unstable. And, I think that’s because many of us, LGBT people, do feel very harmed by the fears she instills in others about us and about what LGBT equality would mean for the US.
Victories achieved through hostility, rather than in trying to make friends of ones enemies (like the MLK quote above), leave a trail of bitterness and plant the seeds for future hostility and aggression. So, in that sense, I don’t think she’s effective.
“As I said before there is no argument you can make, no pain you and yours might suffer that will sway these people.”
I’m not sure who all you mean by “these people,” but I think that’s kind of a ridiculous and unfair caricature. Many people who oppose LGBT rights aren’t as extreme as Ann Coulter and Michelle Bachmann, although some certainly are.
Public opinion toward LGBT rights has increased very much over the years, and those who now support LGBT rights were once “those people” who were “unswayable” and unmoved by our suffering.
Why do I think mocking and insulting them is a bad idea?
For one, because it degrades their humanity. If that doesn’t sway you, because I have seen some really bigoted people become only further entrenched in their bigotry when they’ve (rightly) perceived themselves as mocked and harassed. Like I said in my post, they already think we’re monsters, being mean to them confirms that view.
“If you want them to not consider you a monster it is pretty cleat what you have to do. Stop being gay and give up your quest for equal rights. Short of that they will consider you a monster whether you mock and insult them or not.”
Yeah. I know there are some people who consider the very presence of an avowed lesbian, like me, to be an assertive attack on their very being and, when thinking about me in the abstract, view me as a monster. But, again, I’m not sure how acting even more like a monster will convince them that I’m not really a monster.
Or… maybe that’s not your end goal…?
Phil (and everyone)- I’m okay with people continuing to go over the 3-comment limit, if it’s okay with the FSB moderators.
anyway, I see your point about “both sides” assumptions that they’re primarily speaking to a like-minded audience and they’re not necessarily trying to win over the other side.
But regardless of that intent, the other side is still going to hear about what the other side is saying and doing. And, I think it’s reasonable to expect that the theatre and rhetoric is going to have an effect on the other side, and when it’s hostile it’s going to be used to drum up the narrative that the other side is a big mean bully.
People here keep bringing the Savage/Santorum thing up and, in a way, I regret even using it as an example. There are more obvious (at least to LGBT people) examples of LGBT people being uncivil, racist, sexist, etc- especially in comment threads at some blogs. For instance, the anti-gay woman “Stacy,” who I mentioned in my post, received a plethora of death and rape threats for her post against homosexuality.
I think we’d all agree here that such threats are out of line. And, really, that’s more of what I’m talking about- and yes, Phil, I am in favor of policing “content” with respect to such messages. It’s difficult to advocate for civility without also advocating for us to be mindful of content, right?
People also seem to be taking it for granted that Savage’s campaign is, like, the main reason Santorum is viewed as a marginal candidate, but I question what that perception is based on. I think it could also be likely that as public opinion has become more tolerant of homosexuality, his views are seen as way out of touch.
Ann Coulter gets good fees to speak at certain events and sells lots of books to a certain demographic, but she is simply no longer taken seriously (if she ever was) as a public intellectual. And calling Gore a “fag,” or calling Arabs “towell-heads,” etc etc, is in my view a big part of the reason why, beyond the fever swamps, she simply no longer matters. So, in my view, so much for these tactics being “effective.”
[They achieved their goals by putting massive numbers of people into the street.]
Yes, that was a big part of the strategy, of course. No one — certainly not King — ever suggested that non-violent resistance to oppression is something that, in order to remain civil, is supposed to be meek, or passive, or non-confrontational. In fact he constantly taught that non-violent resistance that respects the humanity of the oppressor (that aims ultimately for redemption rather than only a victory based on power) requires much more courage and discipline that the resort to violence, mere power plays, or other forms of straight-forward hostility and aggression. To me, it seems that you are seriously mis-stating the very essence of this man’s life work.
[When Coulter calls Gore a fag, she certainly doesn’t win over any LGBT people to her side.]
Ann Coulter doesn’t want to win over anybody – it is not her goal. She doesn’t care who likes her or doesn’t like her. Her only desire is to attack and destroy people she disagrees with in the most vicious and destructive way possible. It is pointless to engage her arguments because they are not arguments but invective. Please explain why, in a political debate, anyone owes her civility or kindness or even the time of day.
[I’m not sure who all you mean by “these people,” but I think that’s kind of a ridiculous and unfair caricature. Many people who oppose LGBT rights aren’t as extreme as Ann Coulter and Michelle Bachmann, although some certainly are.]
I am sorry, I thought we were discussing posters on this forum and forums like it. They may not be as extreme as Coulter and Bachman but they are just as intractable. After the 100th time someone tells you marriage equality isn’t needed because gay people have the same right to marry as straight people. Or that women who dress incorrectly should expect to be raped. Or that medically endorsed treatment for transgendered children is experimentation and a kin to the medieval creation of castrato. Or that marriage equality is wrong because it will force them to teach their children that gay people aren’t disordered sinners who are going to hell. You get the message pretty clearly.
[Public opinion toward LGBT rights has increased very much over the years, and those who now support LGBT rights were once “those people” who were “unswayable” and unmoved by our suffering.]
There a a number of reasons for this change, none of them related to civility and incivility on the internet.
[For one, because it degrades their humanity. If that doesn’t sway you, because I have seen some really bigoted people become only further entrenched in their bigotry when they’ve (rightly) perceived themselves as mocked and harassed. Like I said in my post, they already think we’re monsters, being mean to them confirms that view.]
I would question whether anything anyone could do would degrade the humanity of people who believe you should shut up, marry a man and pass for straight, that women dressed a certain should expect to be raped or that transgendered children should be tortured into gender conformity. How much more intrenched in bigotry could these people get?
[Yeah. I know there are some people who consider the very presence of an avowed lesbian, like me, to be an assertive attack on their very being and, when thinking about me in the abstract, view me as a monster. But, again, I’m not sure how acting even more like a monster will convince them that I’m not really a monster.
Or… maybe that’s not your end goal…?]
Okay, with that not so subtle dig I am done.
Phil: I see some of the points you are making, and thank you for them. I’m sorry if I sounded starchy. But I think I want to exit on this particular point of exchange by simply saying (and not trying to give all the reasons why) that, at least for now, I don’t want or intend to go through my past statements, or the past statements of other bloggers, and present to you a specific list of statements that I (now) view as anti-gay. If, on the other hand, you want to show some of these possibly anti-gay or uncivil statements to me, I’d certainly be willing to consider the issue carefully and respond in good faith.
Mont,
FYI, when I say something in conversation I usually mean exactly what I say. I don’t beat around the bush and I am very direct. I think I’ve shown that throughout the conversation.
So, when I asked you a question “Maybe [not appearing like a monster as an LGBT person] isn’t your end goal?”, I was sincerely asking you a question.
So stomp on out of here if you want, but I intended no “subtle dig” at you. Your comments suggest that you don’t care if some people in the opposition might perceive you as a monster.
“Please explain why, in a political debate, anyone owes [Ann Coulter] civility or kindness or even the time of day.”
Ann Coulter’s messaging don’t deserve anyone’s time of day. I have already given my reasons above regarding civility, and have suggested resources you could read by those who put it much better than I do. I would really recommend reading those sources if you are sincere in your questioning.
But, what does concern me about your statement is that it’s not clear how far you personally, as an advocate with righteous anger, would be willing to go to demonstrate unkindness and incivility toward some people.
Like, I think most people here would agree that rape threats would be wrong. But, what about when the incivility, unkindness, and aggression are perceived as less black/white and more gray? Like, where do certain actions and messages fall on the spectrum of acceptable incivility to unacceptable incivility?
It’s been my experience that those who possess relative privilege within oppressed groups are pretty quick to describe other forms of oppression as acceptable incivility.
Jeffrey’s made it clear that he’s okay with making sexist statements against women in his advocacy. At the forum I cited in my post, where the bloggers made fun of Michelle Bachmann’s outfit, some commenters specifically said that anti-gay women are fair game for such attacks, as though “gay rights” is a greater cause than, say, women’s right to not always be judged on our appearances. Some feminist communities thrown transgender people under the bus, for the “greater cause” of women’s rights.
So… I hope you understand that I’m wary of claims that some people aren’t owed civility or kindness. Who is and isn’t owed such basic decency shifts around a lot, even in “enlightened” communities.
Also, you say:
“There a a number of reasons for [the public's greater acceptance of homosexuality], none of them related to civility and incivility on the internet.”
Oh? But I thought Dan Savage totally changed everyone’s mind with his act of internet incivility against Rick Santorum?
I think your claim is pretty bold, without evidence. There certainly are a number of reasons the general public has been more accepting, but since we’re not citing evidence, I would argue that at least some of the reason actually is internet-related.
Fannie, I agree with you that death threats and rape threats are out of line. I also think that attacks which demean an oppressed group, or demean anyone based on the unchosen or irrelevant group identification, are inappropriate. Calling Ann Coulter a “hot tranny mess” is inappropriate because it implies that looking like a transgender person is bad, and perpetuates a stereotype. Making fun of anyone’s looks, weight, or gender is inappropriate.
But being incivil to Ann Coulter, or Maggie Gallagher, or Fred Phelps, in a way that acknowledges the reason you’re being incivil, or in an arbitrary, or funny way? …[comment edited here.] I think that’s where your original post was distinctive. I can understand why one might argue that it’s ineffective to say such things, but I don’t know that I agree that it’s categorically wrong to say them.
Just to be clear, I think it’s entirely appropriate to call someone an ignorant bigot when they really are an ignorant bigot. Just as it’s appropriate to call someone racist, sexist, or transphobic when they actually are being any of those things.
Doing so isn’t uncivil, you’re just calling a spade a spade.
Phil:
There are three people who can edit or delete comments. I’m one. Elizabeth Marquardt is another. And “Admin” is a person on our staff who is assigned the task of reviewing comments.
I certainly don’t claim that we are infallible. I know that we make mistakes, and at times do things that must seem (and I’m sure sometimes are) inconsistent, or just plain wrong-headed.
We are also, each of us, absolutely working in good faith, and committed to being fair-minded and reasonable in implementing our civility policy.
I am the one who deleted you most recent comment. Maybe you just didn’t know, but part of observing our civility policy on the blog means not attacking or sneering at the policy itself or the motives of the people who oversee and implement the policy — which is exactly what you did in your comment.
Contra what you seem to suspect, adopting and trying to enforce this policy has nothing to do with “silencing” anyone, or trying to manipulate things behind the scenes for a partisan purpose. The entire and only point of the exercise is to facilitate open discussion and vigorous debate that does not degenerate into vitriol, accusations of bad faith (which your comment also contained), and personal abuse. I think that, on most days, we do a pretty good job — though of course, as I mentioned, I am sure that we make plenty of mistakes.
I hope this answers your question. I know you addressed it to Fannie, and of course she might choose to speak to it herself, but I am speaking here as one of the site’s moderators.
Not that I’m perfect either, but I would reccommend staying away from criticisms of the person and focusing on the statement.
Not only does this preserve civility, but its also a far more effective in debating. So lets say you prove your opponent is an ignorant bigoted jerk, so what does that mean? It doesn’t mean you are right….
Thanks, David.
I think you mean to say that I did that in my second-to-last comment, not the last one. But I could be mistaken, if you’d like to quote it.