We’re encouraging a discussion of civility on our blog lately, so given some recent ruckus I’m going to share a bit of my thoughts. I have at least two concerns about the notion of civility.
One, I’m suspicious of power, and of how those with more power (and perhaps I am in that category or perhaps I am not, depending on the situation) can use the trump card of civility to shut down others.
Second, if civility means draining our discourse of provocative, well-argued ideas, I’m not interested.
Which brings me to Alana’s piece yesterday, written at Public Discourse and linked to here. It’s a provocative, well-argued piece. I don’t care if you agree with it or not. If you disagree with her points, argue on the merits. But she didn’t point fingers at particular people or name names. Instead, she used powerful metaphors to highlight how women’s bodies are being preyed upon in new ways today. I can’t think of anything more important for us to discuss.
At the moment, our civility policy says to be powerful, be rigorous, be funny, but don’t be mean. Her piece was powerful and rigorous. And it did not name names or point fingers at particular people. Rather, her piece fits in a long, fine tradition of powerful social critique. If you don’t like her argument, combat it with a better argument.
We are interested in civility in this blog. But the day we use “civility” as the excuse to turn into vanilla people pleasers proferring bad writing that won’t offend anybody, I’m out.
Categories: Civil Society
Elizabeth,
While I agree with this in principle – that we ought to be able to write challenging posts and make provocative statements (within reason) – I do think it is possible to be uncivil to entire groups as well as individuals.
Alana’s characterization of entire groups of people could easily be described as both ad hominem and straw men arguments that are uncivil in their nature. I don’t think Alana was malicious in her intent, but her word choice was poor and it wasn’t a model post in terms of civility.
I think she can make the same provocative argument without insulting entire groups of people.
I could not disagree with you more Matthew. Alana’s piece is a vitally needed reality check.
If you want civility, you might start with Ms. Newman’s polemic that I found profoundly offensive – as well as intellectually dishonest.
Would it be civil to post a comment conflating (for example) opposition to same sex marriage and pedophilia?
This isn’t idle speculation! Both substitute focus on coltrolling another’s behavior for one’s own satisfaction. If you’re someone who ignores the ability of others to consent to one kind of sex, you might well be more likely to ignore their ability to refuse consent as well. Both involve an unhealthy level of uninvited interest in manipulating the sex lives of others. Then, of course, there are the child-molestation scandals that have rocked anti-gay organizations like the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts.
And yet … and yet … and yet it’s deeply unfair, isn’t it? It’s prejudicial. Whether all the reasons I give hold water or don’t, it all comes down to saying “if you oppose same sex marriage, you’re a child molester.” And that’s not okay. It’s a smear dressed up as an argument. It’s uncivil.
The same thing applies to Alana’s argument. LGBT folks have been called predators for a long time. It’s an ugly smear with an ugly history. In order to get there, Alana had to ignore serious differences (LIKE CONSENT) between the situations.
I think many of us have been suspicious of the way “civility” is used, thinking it’s used too often as a code phrase meaning roughly, “don’t fight back when I hit you.”
For those of us with that suspicion, your post does not inspire confidence.
—Myca
Karen,
I don’t disagree with the broader point Alana is trying to make. I think that her comparison between different types of human objectification are valid and need to be discussed. However, I think she shoots herself and her message in the foot when she makes these rhetorical comparisons with little tact. Who wouldn’t be offended if their attempt (which does raise valid ethical concerns) to start a family using these technologies caused them to be compared to a sexual predator? It immediately puts people considering surrogacy and sperm donation on the defensive and loses Alana all her credibility to be a voice for Donor/Surrogacy kids who are victimized by those practices.
To make things worse, the LGBT community has already suffered decades of stigmatism by being routinely characterized as predators, so it is rubbing salt in a wound to characterize them in such a way.
I know Alana is passionate about this topic, and is fighting in defense of an entire group that has not had a voice in these discussions, and for what it is worth, I really value her as a colleague. That being said, I want to hold her to a high standard because people are depending on her.
Myca, if you look at the ENTIRE FULL PICTURE, what she wrote is NOT AT ALL discriminating against your very very focused cause of concern (LGBT issues).
David Cary Hart, your comment is uncivil, derogatory and offensive.
David Cary Hart, your comment was taken down because it was uncivil.
Alana S. is a grenade thrower. I don’t mind grenade throwers. What I mind is the pretense of having a civility policy that apparently doesn’t apply to her, but does apply to commenters. She can say that gay people are predators and johns. But if I call her (or people like her) a whore, I am being uncivil. If you think that she is the model for civil discourse in this country, then you must no longer complain about the deterioration of civility.
A couple of quick comments. First arguments can be good or bad, but they aren’t by their nature uncivil, and this holds for ad hominem and straw man arguments. They’re fallacious, but unless they’re coupled with something deliberately insulting and the like, they’re just that.
Secondly, I do think if “civility” is to remain a useful term it has to be applied to how ideas are presented, not to the ideas themselves. As I see it anything can be presented civilly, including claims that are offensive, stupid, immoral, or worst of all terminally boring. To suppose that anything that would offend or entail a negative judgment on a group of people is “uncivil” is to make it hard to talk about anything contentious. If I argue spanking is child abuse by implication I’ve labeled a large chunk of parents child abusers. Oh well. If I argue religious is based on pernicious superstitions by implication I’ve labeled believers fools. Oh well. That’s the nature of contentious discussions.
It’s NOT just about LGBT people! READ what she’s saying don’t project this as a personal offense.
“I think that her comparison between different types of human objectification are valid and need to be discussed.”
How would Matthew Kaal have worded this better? Inquiring minds want to know.
I find it interesting that this blog got bent out of shape when Frank Rich allegedly called David Blankenhorn a “bigot,” but routinely allows Alana S. to make all sorts of incendiary comments.
According to an essay published some time ago on glbtq.com:
“She regularly exposes embarrassing details about her family life and her longsuffering parents, or more accurately her ineffectual, infertile “social father” and her selfish mother who purchased one child in the adoption market and bought sperm to bear another. (These characterizations, I hasten to add, are Alana’s, not mine.)”
“Notwithstanding the fact that she herself has sold her eggs, she is adamantly opposed to surrogacy and other forms of artificial reproductive technology. Identifying as “first-person afflicted” (the ultimate soubriquet for the victimology circus that is FamilyScholars), Alana portrays herself as having been severely damaged by being conceived as a result of artificial insemination.”
“Edroso awarded Alana second-place in the Village Voice’s “10 Best Rightblog Rants of 2010,” for her riff about what she does not tell people (even as she proceeds to tell people): “You know what I am afraid to tell people? I’m afraid to tell them that my dad was a sperm donor. To me, that is creepy. To me, that sounds disgusting. To me, there is something wrong with that. It embarrasses me. So for the most part, I don’t tell anyone. I tell them my dad is dead.”"
“She is given to making the most outrageous statements, such as describing adoption as “human trafficking” and telling an adoptive father that he is not a real father, just “raising someone else’s unwanted kid.”"
“She has equated the donation of eggs and sperm with murdering people to harvest their organs. On the day of Elizabeth Edwards’ funeral she speculated that Edwards had used donor eggs to conceive her younger children, and therefore the children were not REALLY hers, because, after all, the only connections that matter are biological ones.”
“Most recently, she opined that “We might eventually need a Taliban-like implementation of social guidelines in order to prop up the millions of us with spongy spines and confused ideas on love.” . . . ”
“She is the ultimate cyberbully in her over-the-top attacks on others, and like most bullies she cannot bear criticism. Whenever any commenter pushes back against this little fascist, Marquardt sweeps in to protect her as though she were some porcelain figurine notwithstanding the fact that she has the sensitivity of a jackhammer.”
Here is a link to the article
I think it is far more uncivil of Alana S. to call egg and sperm donors murderers than it is for Frank Rich to associate David Blankenhorn with bigots. Yet Frank Rich, who really is a powerful writer of social critique, was excoriated here, while Alana S., who is not a good writer, is allowed free rein to defame whole groups of people.
I’d like to point out that Alana’s article wasn’t *on* Family Scholars, it’s on Public Discourse, and she linked to it. It fits in with the radical tone and direction of that site, which is almost certainly why it’s there and not here. I don’t think linking to it is in any way uncivil.
And this is from someone who agrees with the criticism of the essay itself. It helps me in a way, because I’m fiercely protective of my children. The prospect of their hearing me falsely labeled a predator fuels me to be more involved in 3PR education, reform and acceptance.
Elizabeth,
“But she didn’t point fingers at particular people or name names.”
Do you believe that that’s sufficient to free a text from criticism about the ethics of its delivery?
I think Myca brings up an important point with consent. That’s why Alana’s argument isn’t well-reasoned; by comparing ART to sex work it ignores the very real elements of coercion that are explicit in sex work (and the life experiences of sex workers). That coercion is simply not present in ART. A good case can be/is being made that 3rd party ART is an exploitative practice, but it is not more exploitative than other routine forms of “first world” exploitation (ex.: low-wages or high rents in substandard housing).
Her argument glosses over the fact that because of the way the market for 3rd party ART works, donors are most often not from more typically oppressed groups, but rather from the more privileged. Those seeking donors may be privileged, but they are seeking donors from *equally privileged backgrounds*. I understand that Alana feels pain from being a donor-conceived person and from donating herself….but it is precisely because she *wasn’t* vulnerable that she was chosen as a donor. She’s a healthy, young, pretty, light-complexioned white woman from an upper-middle-class background with a college education. Trust—there is no market for the eggs of women who don’t fall within those parameters. Comparing the plight of privileged donors who consent to donation, and who have real options for foregoing that particular means of earning, with the actual struggle of sex workers who for the most part lack any realistic choices (and who are often in real fear for their lives) is ridiculous. Terminology like pimps, whore and johns is….basically a form of Godwin’s law: an extreme comparison designed to shut down argument with a naked appeal to emotion. Intellectual laziness. Want to make an argument against reproductive exploitation? Then make it with facts and not your personal imagination along with a few choice insults.
Also, from my repeated visits here, I gather that Alana’s primary concern is that children should not be artificially separated from their biological parents. So, color me confused that in her fight against 3rd party ART, she enlists the help of people and organizations that are unconcerned with the separation of families—whose opposition to ART (including non-3rd party ART) goes hand-in-hand with a strong advocacy for adopting-out children from their unmarried parents (and those parents’ extended families). That makes no sense, to ally oneself with those who oppose one’s primary interest (though they may share secondary interests).
I’m of two minds.
One the one hand, I’m not sure there’s a ‘civil’ way to present the idea that black people are genetically inferior, gay men are ‘predators’, or that homophobes are all child molesters. I think some ideas are so insulting, just in their nature, that expressing them, even with a please and a thank you, is inherently uncivil.
Like you, though, I do believe in a robust marketplace of ideas, and that we ought to ideally be able to discuss any idea in a deep way. I’m not saying that we ought not discuss whether black people are genetically inferior, just that doing so is not necessarily ‘civil.’
I am concerned about the burden it places on disadvantaged people to be insulted openly (which is what “you’re a sexual predator,” or, “you’re genetically inferior,” are) and yet be restricted to acting like it’s a calm parlor-room discussion taking place. That burden does not generally apply to non-disadvantaged folks, because debating whether or not SSM opponents should have their children removed from their homes is not an argument in the mainstream of discussion, and thus is easily recognized as uncivil.
I don’t have an answer for this. I think that cosmetic civility (civility of form) can be oppressive to the disadvantaged and substantive civility (civility of ideas) can be ideological censorship. I don’t like either of those options, but I also recognize that civility is necessary for discussion, and wouldn’t like to take part in an uncivil discussion.
In the end, I think I basically agree with you … cosmetic civility is the least worst option … but I also think it’s important to recognize the extra burden it places on disadvantaged peoples, and to work to mitigate that. I don’t know what that mitigation would look like. I just know that if I tell a black person that they’re genetically inferior, and they respond, I’m the one who started that fight, not them … and it feels unjust to me to ding them for incivility.
On the other hand, even leaving all of that aside, I think that the main concern in this forum, at least for me, has been about double standards around civility, rather than the rightness or wrongness of any particular standard. Whatever the standard, it ought to apply to everyone.
—Myca
I suspect that I agree with Alana on some of the narrow issues with respect to surrogacy and gamete donation.
Am I going to listen to her as a voice of reasonable, mature, and civil discourse, though, when she categorizes her “opposition” as predators? Nope. I will choose to work with others, preferably those who can make their arguments in ways that do not demonize groups of people who have been demonized for far too long.
Myca – I edited the profane language out of your post. The point you were making was okay, but we ask that you use family-friendly language. Thanks.
No problem. How about:
“I just know that if I tell a black person that they’re genetically inferior, and they respond, “You’re a worthless bigot,” I’m the one who started that fight, not them … and it feels unjust to me to ding them for incivility.”
—Myca
Myca, one quick point. As I see it, that an argument has been presented in a civil way has no bearing at all on its overall merits. Stupid arguments defending offensive claims are stupid and offensive even when presented civilly, and so the appropriate response may very well be to ignore them or to to tell the person presenting them to F off or whatever. All else being equal, this would be my response to someone offering an argument about the genetic inferiority of a racial group, even if they made their case with impeccable civility. I take it the policy here invites us to take those kinds of responses to things posted on this site elsewhere, which seems fair enough. I don’t think a civility policy (if applied equitably–I gather that’s one of the worries) amounts to anything more.
The way I read Alana’s essay, she labels an entire group of people — those who buy or accept women’s eggs — as “predators,” and warns that your gay friend or family member may be a predator as well. She defends this by suggesting that “surrogacy falls into the realm of things that are wrong even if it is consensual.”
In other words, you can be a predator without knowing you are a predator. You can be a sweet, charitable, nice neighbor and friend — and still be a predator. Because the act of surrogacy itself is inherently wrong, regardless of whether it is consensual or not.
This sounds a lot like what many (though not all) gay marriage supporters on this blog have said to me: you may think of yourself as sweet and charitable and civil, but opposing same-sex marriage makes you a bigot. Nothing I can say or do will change that.
It is, I think, perfectly reasonable that one can be predatory or bigoted without realizing it.
But I think Alana’s blanket characterization of gay people as possible predators is uncharitable because even thought the act itself may be wrong — in this case, I agree with Alana that surrogacy is wrong in and of itself — any one person’s motive in doing a wrong act may be perfectly charitable (I just want to help other people to have a family). That doesn’t diminish the wrongness of the act — but it does suggest to me that it’s uncharitable to apply a blanket label like “predator” on a group of people, like gay people who seek women’s eggs.
The same goes for applying the label of “bigot” to people — like me — who oppose same-sex marriage. It’s possible that opposing same-sex marriage is inherently wrong — but it’s also possible that a person could have perfectly charitable intentions in opposing same-sex marriage.
To me, the answer is not to issue blanket characterizations of groups of people, but to educate people about why I think “x” is inherently wrong. And I don’t think applying blanket labels is necessarily helpful in that education.
Finally, for what it’s worth, I would also point out that if Alana can’t say what she says about “predators” at FamilyScholars, then same-sex marriage supporters are forbidden from calling people like me “bigots” at FamilyScholars.
I don’t think that should happen. But I’m just saying.
Myca brings up an excellent point with consent. Alana’s argument is certainly provocative, but is poorly reasoned. She uses inflammatory language as an appeal to emotion and a distraction from the more complex issues surrounding 3rd party ART, which distracts from the one portion of her argument that has merit—that the practice (as it currently stands) is exploitative. Her argument was neither powerful nor rigorous as it relies heavily (solely?) on emotional epithets.
The comparison of donors to sex workers is patently ridiculous. Donors are chosen by agencies and donees precisely because they aren’t vulnerable. They are young, healthy, educated persons with high-IQs and better options for earning money than the average person (especially the average person their own age). To imply that the same level of coercion exists for donors as exists for sex workers, or that agencies or donees mete out a similar level of violence or threats of violence as pimps is patently ridiculous and degrades her argument.
Want to discuss the elements of exploitation in reproductive technology? Fine, I’m all ears. But—use facts, not opinion, not guesswork, and not inflammatory appeals to emotion. The plight of a private-school-educated, healthy, young, pretty, white woman (or man) with a college degree and “good” DNA is not at all comparable to the plight of the average sex worker, even if both are being exploited for their bodies. To make that argument diminishes the actual struggles of a marginalized group of people with little-to-no options for survival with the chosen struggles of a far more privileged group of people with a greater-than-average number of options and good prospects for their futures. That’s not “rigorous”, that’s insulting.
(I double-posted; I was unaware that all comments were being withheld. The second one is probably more concise than the first. It’s the one I would post if it were my choice—I assumed my first comment didn’t go through because of a phone glitch.)
My Offensive-Uncivil-Deleted Comment
I really have no axe to grind. I have run some rather large organizations and my late partner and I were together for over 30 years. I look at things through the lens of a gay teen. In that regard, I can honestly say that Ms. Newman’s polemic was far more offensive than anything that I might write as a comment. The fact that it is coming via Witherspoon only adds fuel to my fire. The bishops have ensured that these kids (and their parents) hear and read this kind of stuff in a continuing stream. These children are told that they are “disordered;” that they need to “reorient” or become celibate. Parents march these kids into the offices of crackpots who promise “reparative therapy.” I am getting amped up so I’ll leave it there but, hopefully, you see my point.
Bottom line: Uncivil posts will engender uncivil comments. In other words, comment moderation should conform to moderation of posts. Some of my friends have asked me to link to material that I find incendiary and I won’t do it.
I worry about that too!
For instance, it’s very hard to discuss how bigotry and/or homophobia is part of opposition to same-sex marriage here on FSB, because such discussions are routinely shouted down with (ironic) accusations that anyone who uses the word “bigotry” is trying to shut the discussion down, and with claims that to bring up the question of bigotry is uncivil.
The kind of comparisons Alana made, when used to compare those who oppose SSM to unquestioned racial bigots, is enough to get a comment moderated.
Now, speaking for myself, I don’t want to “point fingers” at other comment-writers here. I get no pleasure out of angering people, and I will bend over backwards to avoid giving offense.
But I do want to be able to discuss why I think some arguments are bigoted, or would only arise within the context of a bigoted society, without either having to worry that to do so is uncivil, or to having the discussion shouted down by the anger of the discomfited.
If we want to say certain kinds of comparisons add more heat than light, I’m okay with that, but for fairness’ sake that gate has to swing in both directions. I’m happy to never see SSM opponents compared to the KKK — but if that’s out of bounds, then comparing gay men to sexual predators should be out of bounds, too.
Elizabeth wrote:
I worry about that too!
For instance, it’s very hard to discuss how bigotry and/or homophobia is part of opposition to same-sex marriage here on FSB, because such discussions are routinely shouted down with (ironic) accusations that anyone who uses the word “bigotry” is trying to shut the discussion down, and with claims that to bring up the question of bigotry is uncivil.
The kind of comparisons Alana made, when used to compare those who oppose SSM to unquestioned racial bigots, is enough to get a comment moderated.
Now, speaking for myself, I don’t want to “point fingers” at other comment-writers here. I get no pleasure out of angering people, and I will bend over backwards to avoid giving offense.
But I do want to be able to discuss why I think some arguments are bigoted, or would only arise within the context of a bigoted society, without either having to worry that to do so is uncivil, or to having the discussion shouted down by the anger of the discomfited.
If we want to say certain kinds of comparisons add more heat than light, I’m okay with that, but for fairness’ sake that gate has to swing in both directions. I’m happy to never see SSM opponents compared to a famous racist organization — but if that’s out of bounds, then comparing gay men to sexual predators should be out of bounds, too.
* * *
Civility is great.
Civility-policing is awful.
This is always the problem.
One of the reasons I think Alana did not use “tactful” but arguably incendiary–emotion provoking and reflecting–language is this:
She does not feel privileged. She feels suppressed. She is willing to dare the criticism in order to get her point across.
People with power, or who seek power, have special obligations–with power comes responsibility.
A lot of our civility conundrum comes because we now have two groups of people on opposite sides who feel the entitlement of the powerless in discourse.
Alana is clearly using “predator” to mean: seeking to buy eggs.
Not sexual predation in other contexts. It is inflammatory. Can flames enlighten ever?
It seems to me Alana’s analogy or comparison or whatever it was meant to be is based on transparently fallacious reasoning. She starts with a sort of trendy quasi-economic explanation of patterns of sexual predation. Let’s suppose that works. She then suggest the same kind of analysis can elucidate patterns of ART use. Let’s suppose that works. She then supposes this tells us use of ART is a form of predation. That most certainly doesn’t work.
I wouldn’t characterize this as uncivil–lots of worse things come to mind. But it’s easy to see how it offends.
So in evaluating Alana’s language one question to ask is–not the only question but one important one–Do people who seek to buy eggs seek the good of the egg donor?
I don’t think so. In that way it is like prostitution. People do not necessarily seek to harm the prostitute (not a predator in that sense). But they do seek the right to use without love or care.
There is an analogy here. Analogy means “relevant similarity” not identity.
In other words, what does one buy in paying a prostitute? Not sex but the right to leave afterwards