When engaged in feminist debate with a member of the estrogenly-challenged sex, it might be wise to avoid the following nugget:
"Well, do you have a vagina? No? Then be quiet."
I might want to start "D'Orazio's Law" -- corollary to the oft-invoked Godwin's Law of Internet discourse -- in which anyone in a feminist debate asking the accusatory question "do you have a vagina?" to a member of the estrogenly-challenged sex hast thus ended the discussion.
Now, I am quite aware of the meaning behind asking a man, "do you have a vagina" in response to his opinions on wimmins. The inquiry points out the fact that men do not know what is like to be women and thus hast no business (so the theory goes) to lend their opinions on the subject of the testosterone-challenged sex.
However, we all know what the answer is (usually) to the question thus posed to a man, "do you have a vagina?"
NO, HE DOESN'T HAVE A VAGINA!!!!!!
Asking him if he indeed has a vagina serves very little constructive purpose. I understand the meaning behind the question, but all it will really accomplish is to make the man defensive.
Now, there is the related issue of whether a man sans vagina sans tits sans ovaries is in any position to comment on wimmin's issues at all.
If we as women want to take that view, then the reverse can be used on us, and we can be kept from...oh gosh I don't know, writing comics starring male superheroes, because we do not have a penis and therefore are not "fit" to write about those possessing said instrument. 'Cause we don't "get" the whole penis thing.
In the end, I think you have to figure out what means more to you in a debate -- getting in the last word with a pithy comment, or actually trying to help change another person's point of view. If you want to help change (or expand) another person's point of view, you've got to think "inclusive" and not "exclusive." You can't underline how different you are from the other person...you have to find some common ground to speak from.
Yeah, your male counterpart in the feminist debate about cheesecake in comics doesn't have a vagina. That's right. But has he ever felt embarrassed, ashamed? Has he ever felt defensive about the way a female friend or family member has been treated? Has he ever suffered from being stereotyped, misunderstood? These are all areas from which to build some common ground.
Ad hominem generally can be dismissed out of hand, as a rule.
ReplyDeleteExcellent post - and thanks as well to Mordicai for teaching me a new word.
ReplyDeleteIf you're going to use that argument, just say "You! Stop talking! Now and forever!" 'Cause, I mean, that's essentially what you're saying.
ReplyDeleteIt is a debating tactic (or should one say: trick?) that is by no means restricted to gender issues, btw. Variations on the theme of "my group is so special that outsiders cannot understand us" (with the unspoken addendum: "while those of my group do not have to be able to read minds in order to know what the outsiders are thinking)" are also be used to try and silence differing opinions because they are voiced by someone who is not the member of a certain ethnic group, a certain class, a crime victim or of another randomly defined group. I recall seeing sew-on patches re. the Viet Nam war that told anyone who had not served there (presumably in the US forces) to shut up...
ReplyDeleteGoddamn it, Valerie D'Orazio, thank you for existing.
ReplyDeleteI wholeheartedly agree with your post. There is only one point on which I had a thought. You said "'Cause we don't 'get' the whole penis thing." I was under the impression that "wimmins" could "get" the "whole penis thing" whenever they wanted, just by asking. That's what I heard. Good post.
ReplyDeleteO.S., are you exaggerating for rhetorical effect? "before you go telling women that what they are feeling and how they are feeling it is wrong" ... "perhaps you should take a step back" does not equal "shut up and go away". (Thanks for the link btw - one to add to my bloglines).
ReplyDeleteMenshevik, you're confusing two different things. The in-group thing does get used to "silence differing opinions". But it's true that women have to understand men in a way that most men don't understand women [other examples removed because this is getting far too long]. That's what you have when you don't have Privilege, and there's probably a word for it. Privilege is artificial, but its results are not "random".
To be fair on the original poster what she was trying to say is not so much that people-without-uteri should not be having an opinion at all about feminist issues, but that said people-without-out uteri shouldn't be presuming to say that women's opinions/perceptions of misogyny in comics are wrong.
ReplyDeleteWhich is a more subtle shade of rhetoric, but it's something we can actually work with, still, instead of shutting down the conversation.
Many women also dun have vaginas :\ It's not rly fair to judge by that standard :(
ReplyDelete"dun have vaginas"
ReplyDelete*chuckle
Somewhat off topic yet on topic simultaneously, I just like the phrase "feminist discourse." Maybe that's what I should name my backing band. Unknown Eric & Feminist Discourse. It's a lot cooler sounding than Unknown Eric & the Small Humiliations.
ReplyDeleteTwo things bother me about this entry. One, as I mentioned in Kalinara's blog, is that I agree you are burning a strawman in effigy. You reconstruct Geek so Geek says something offensive (instead of Geek's "just step back" you say "Then be quiet!"). Your version is so much easier for you to use as a springboard for the rest of your post, rather than write about Geek asking her imagined auditor to think. Exposition which requires its readers to think is more uncomfortable to consider than a discourse that orders them around, and it's easier to rank out on discourse that orders people to do something, even if you have to create it for yourself.
ReplyDeleteIt's an oratory/expository style I'm uncomfortable with. You've created a strawman most rational people can't help but agree with. It leads them to be more prone to agreeing with the rest of your arguments, which are harangues on Not to Do This Because It's Bad and Alienating And Wrong. You don't consider any of the discourse that may have driven the speaker to make such a statement. You don't take into account the personal reason the speaker may have for having said something this extreme. Your "Just Don't Do It" is a Big Government blanket solution which ignores whatever real issues are going on underneath.
My second problem with this: now it's a woman telling other women how they should talk to men, without any knowledge of what's being discussed, of those women's issues and past histories, of the men involved and how they address the women. You aren't them. How would you feel if someone had told you last year that discussing the bad behavior of some men will turn all men against you? Wouldn't you have wondered how they could say that to you, who had undergone such physical and emotional trauma during your career as a comics editor and in your relationship at that time? Wouldn't you tell that person they had no right to assume they knew your situation and what you could or couldn't talk about?
I would never tell a man that because he didn't have feminine genetics, he was incapable of understanding me. But neither would I tell other women not to use such an argument. I would figure they had their own, good, reasons for doing so.
Tamora: Your argument seems to me to be founded on the notion that women should not disagree with each other, or contradict each other because they must respect the other person and their reasoning.
ReplyDeletePoppycock.
If a person is comporting themselves like an ass, then they are, and ought to be reminded of it.
Valerie is not using a straw man argument. She is using a mild rhetoric exaggeration. The fact is that the text she criticized was, in essence, telling men they could not be equal participants in a discussion.
Again, poppycock.
Men are capable of empathy, and just as capable of understanding women as women are of understanding men.
I love women. I prefer, in fact, their company to the company of men, even though I identify as gay.
I understand the frustration that comes from a feeling of disenfranchisement. Trust me on this one.
My problem with so much of what I see on BOTH sides of this debate is that BOTH sides are sexually exclusive and make sweeping generalizations.
I just wish, truly, deeply, that we could just set gender the hell aside, and face each other as people.
I don't need tits to know that people are vastly overreacting to the death of Tigra.
If Tigra were swapped out with, oh, let's say...Speedball, the amount of clamor over this would be ZERO.
I admit, there is some sexualization to the scene. Tigra is, and THIS is where I get frustrated, a sex object. Always pretty much has been. The character is a joke, a terrible sexist joke.
Sub-manga wish-fulfillment.
And now people are losing it because they perceive she's been treated disrespectfully?
Please.
"How would you feel if someone had told you last year that discussing the bad behavior of some men will turn all men against you? Wouldn't you have wondered how they could say that to you, who had undergone such physical and emotional trauma during your career as a comics editor and in your relationship at that time?"
ReplyDeleteTamora, I wish to God somebody would have had a good talk with me before I approached discussing my experiences as a comic book editor in the particular manner that I did. I mean, it was powerful, it was raw, it made people think, etc etc. But it did not make any real change in terms of that particular company. Sure, some people had a "talking to," some artists were asked to make some pages less "sexy." But the scorched-Earth approach I used only sealed up any hope of a debate with the real decision-makers at that place for the intention of real change. They only responded by becoming even more insular and defensive.
Yeah, I scored a home-run for me with "Goodbye To Comics." But now I am in a position to really help females in this industry in a concrete way; and I have to face up to the fact that my previous approach has produced boundaries that, unless I ease up on my personal ego-issues, will not benefit a cause bigger than me.
I guess it is a question of whether we want to work towards actual change or not.
You're right -- I'll leave those who wish to approach this issue from a "us vs. them" mentality to go do so for now on, unmolested by my criticism. How's that?
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteYour argument seems to me to be founded on the notion that women should not disagree with each other, or contradict each other because they must respect the other person and their reasoning.
No. I'm saying it's wrong to tell each other how to disagree, in what terms to couch our disagreements. I'm saying it's wrong to tell anyone else, of either sex, how to speak to each other. Too often of late I've seen people on both sides of the chromosome fence telling everyone on the opposite side how they need to talk to those on the other side, and I'm impatient with it. Women and men don't partake of a hive mind. It's foolish to assume we all debate from a playbook, and it's foolish to assume we know each other's reasons for using particular pieces of rhetoric. If people would spend more time trying to figure out why others say the things that they do, instead of telling them to stop saying them, maybe this debate would turn into a conversation instead of a screaming match. (Yes, I write fantasy for a living.)
Men are capable of empathy, and just as capable of understanding women as women are of understanding men.
I never, would never, claim otherwise. But I also know women who feel differently, and I don't have the chutzpah to speak as they feel they must. I would ask them to explain themselves more fully, and be open to discussion rather than rejection.
I just wish, truly, deeply, that we could just set gender the hell aside, and face each other as people.
Ditto.
Tamora: I stand corrected. I misunderstood your intent.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I agree that we shouldn't debate the terms of debate. I surely do agree we might all be less shrill and absolute in our statements.
Thank you.
this reminded me of that "Big Gay Sketch Show" skit on Logo where the little boy wants a vagina.
ReplyDeleteLike other posters, I saw the link you discussed more as saying "Stop and think about it before you tell women what it is or isn't like to be a woman." I hang out at G-W and some of our most insightful posters (incl. some of our mods) are male; they add great things to the discussion. But in cruising the forums and blogs I've also seen too many men who take a tone like they're going to set the women straight on what material was or was not offensive to women, being beyond unhelpful into presumptuous and patronising. So I think the post wasn't saying "you don't have the right to talk," rather "you don't have the right to make that determination" and silence others.
ReplyDelete"I'm saying it's wrong to tell each other how to disagree, in what terms to couch our disagreements. I'm saying it's wrong to tell anyone else, of either sex, how to speak to each other."
ReplyDeleteBut *you* are telling me how to disagree and speak to other people.
You do realize that, don't you?
Legible Susan: I don't think so. While it is true that non-privileged groups will have more of an incentive to try to understand a privileged group (and in all likelihood will have more material to work on), this does not necessarily mean that members of the non-privileged groups will always actually achieve this understanding. For many it is easier to stick to a stereotype or prejudice. And the problem becomes worse when, as can happen, blanket statements such as "men are such beasts" and "all politicians are crooked" are applied not just to a group but also to indivual members of that group, even if one has only just met them.
ReplyDeleteValerie,
ReplyDeletePost A)
You're right -- I'll leave those who wish to approach this issue from a "us vs. them" mentality to go do so for now on, unmolested by my criticism. How's that?
Post B)
But *you* are telling me how to disagree and speak to other people.
You do realize that, don't you?
So which is it? I have a point, or I don't? My saying that telling other people what to say is wrong is telling you that telling other people what to say is right because you feel that's what you should say? Why not just say what you think for yourself, and let other people say what they think for themselves? The only blanket statement I make here is in reference to not telling other people en masse what they should be saying, each on her/his own.
And it's still only what I think. I don't pretend to know what right words will make/unmake discourse. I only know I don't like being treated like hive mind.
I didn't think you did, either. Or is this:
But the scorched-Earth approach I used only sealed up any hope of a debate with the real decision-makers at that place for the intention of real change. They only responded by becoming even more insular and defensive.
(being treated with preconception by people who don't know you)
just empty pixels?
To be fair to Valerie, I certainly took her statement not as laying down the law for other feminists, but as a caution that arguments of the "do you have a vagina?" type shut down discourse, rather than furthering it. It's a cheap way to "win" an argument, if one considers getting the last word a "win". Personally, I consider persuading the other person a real win, and dismissing the other person in that manner will NEVER persuade them -- I feel fairly certain that no one has ever responded to that statement: "Damn. You're right. What was a thinking?"
ReplyDeleteMenshevik: I'm not saying that the non-privileged group achieve total understanding. I'm saying that they see the viewpoint of the privileged group, at least in its public aspect, whereas the privileged group don't see the viewpoint of the Other unless they make an effort. The men that Geekgirlsrule was arguing with don't make that effort. (Kalinara says it better in the post that O.S. linked to today.)
ReplyDeleteLook, whether or not the specific post being responded to used this argument, I HAVE heard this argument used, and wholeheartedly endorse this blog post in response to the phenomenon, if not a specific event.
ReplyDeletedo you have a fagina?
ReplyDeleteLegible Susan: What you say is not that different from what I said. I would have to question, at least as far as gender relations go, that the viewpoint of "the Other" is as invisible as you make it out to be. Having only seen the thread that O.S. linked to, I do not know what the men Geekgirlsrule has a beef with said (which did not really matter to my post because I was talking about a general phenomenon, not just about male/female issues and certainly not just about Geekgirlrules), but I have to wonder: How do we know that they did not make the effort? There is sometimes a temptation to "reason" thusly:
ReplyDelete1. I know I'm right.
2. If one is in full possession of the facts and makes an (honest) effort to understand them, one cannot fail to arrive (close enough to) my conclusions and opinion.
Therefore
3. If someone significantly disagrees with me, tells me I am wrong, this shows that s/he has not made an effort to understand or is ignorant of important facts (due to laziness or close-mindedness).
BTW, another consequence of this in-group thinking is of course that a female anti-feminist (for such people do exist) could use it to quickly end a discussion with a male feminist (or feminist sympathizer).
yes that's bad to use in an argument but uh, like some other people have pointed out, that's not at all what that poster was saying.
ReplyDeletei do think that retaliation does come up a lot in situations where a guy is, in all honesty, just trying to shut a feminist (male or female) up, where they purport to fully understanding the situation and since they don't see anything wrong with it, we must be overreacting, etc etc. (think for a moment, why a feminist might use that reply in a conversation. it's not going to be when the guy is being very thoughtful, is it? you really think a sensible feminist is going to reply that why when the guy's speaking any sort of sense? :/) so uh, i really have very little pity for trolls. I don't think that phrase is used very often in civilized discussion, why would it be? your whole post is assuming the feminist is just some crazy bitch speaking to some mild mannered dude who just wants to be shown the light.
yeah it might stop discourse and yes it's technically an ass thing to say but.... do you really think you're going to get very far with that guy? do you think he's there to learn if it's come to that point?
honestly, a guy does NOT know what it's like to be a girl and never will (even with a sex change). that's all there is to it. so i can fully understand why people get pissed when a guy is telling them how to feel, why their feelings are wrong, why their concern is no big deal.
yes, it's good to be the "bigger man" (well, woman) in the conversation and not resort to that kind of shit but in practice? sometimes i don't feel like listening to shit any more. can you honestly tell me that you've never had a sexist troll start shit with you?
Wow. I like your posts. Good job! Nice to see someone *not whining* but trying to change the WIR syndrome. And feminist theory that is not scary in general.
ReplyDelete