Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktYesterday, I read through lms’s hiatus post and the comments on it. I’m not here much because of time constraints and health reasons, but I feel a connection to this discussion that goes back to a time on the Plum Line maybe a couple of years ago when I raised the issue of women’s voices in the public sphere. There was a wide ranging conversation that included a request of Greg to add a woman poster.
I won’t try to reprise all the arguments here. But oddly perhaps, the one comment I remember most was from Cao. He said that the only scientifically proven psychological difference between genders was in competitiveness. I don’t know about the accuracy of that or what studies he was basing it on. But I think it offers one construct that may be useful in thinking about what happens on this blog and others.
While I know how very competitive women can be, it’s my sense that men and women differ in the nature of how we’re competitive, and that it has to do with both stakes and practicality. I’m going to offer only one anecdotal example here. I know my son and son-in-law will compete over something as trivial as who is quicker at solving the riddles on their kids’ Popsicle sticks, while the women in the family wouldn’t.
Translating this to the world of the blog is maybe a big leap, but I’ll try anyway. I think a lot of discussion on this blog and others has to do with the difference between constructing a point and winning a point. I know that when I’ve raised an issue to discuss and tried to state my case as clearly as I can that I don’t feel like trying to beat down every opposing comment, particularly if it feels tangential. I may try to state my position in another way that I hope will clarify it, but if there is still a lot of opposition noise that I don’t agree with, I am generally ready to exit the discussion. It’s not because I feel vanquished. It’s more because I see no point in trying to convince someone who by opinion and/or temperament won’t be convinced. I have other things to do.
I think ATiM is a great experiment, and it would be sad for it to collapse over a difficulty that has a lot to do with how a discussion is carried on. And it’s particularly sad to think that, as hard as lms has worked on this experiment, the climate may no longer feel welcome to her and perhaps to some of the other women. So let me ask this of those men who found themselves entrenched on the other side of the argument about women’s health: does trying to win a point that others may see as strained really make it worth coming across as indifferent to an issue of bedrock importance to the women who live it?
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Very thoughtful, abc.
But I don’t think your concluding question is fair. First, there was nothing very “competitive” about that discussion leading up to the denunciations we received. Indeed, the discussion didn’t even seem particularly heated to me until hell was unleashed, so to speak. We weren’t so much even defending the law as trying to explore the issues. Second, your question makes it sound as though we merely argued for sport. That isn’t fair or accurate. Third, I fail to see why one side would be expected simply to defer based on an assumption that the issue is less important to them.
And, finally, I just don’t accept the underlying assumption that we were out of bounds while the gals weren’t. It takes two to compete. The harsh words didn’t come from us. I just do not see how we end up being the bad guys for that.
What am I missing?
LikeLike
I am actually replying to ABC, QB. None of the men thought they were defending the VA law. The heat didn’t come from competitiveness, I think, at least not as how any male would view it. I think it came from the classic difference in what men and women saw as the “point” of the conversation. If I had come into the original VA conversation at the beginning, I would have simply said I thought the statute was dumb, but surely not unconstitutional. And then left. But that was not what the women thought was important. I do not intend to express what the women thought was important, here, not my job. But eventually the conversations took on the aspect of two old friends talking right past each other, with neither feeling heard. Then the atonal disharmony escalated.
In this case, the written word did not help the conversation, at all. I have seen this – and so has LMS, to her frustration. Deescalating tone is more difficult when the position has been staked out in writing. That has been disheartening to Lulu in the past.
Let me add this – if the “men” had stated clearly what they thought was important in the conversation and the “women” had stated clearly what they thought was important, rather than assuming that all were on board the same boat, it might not have saved that thread. Only stated mutual recognition of the positions, clearly conceded, would have done so, if it had been up front – before the first expression of outrage. And no one was that clear, that early. Trust me on that – I came late to the thread, and by the time everyone was clear the damage had been done.
Respectfully,
Mark
LikeLike
“What am I missing?”
I think the criticism is over a perceived lack of empathy.
LikeLike
bsimon: that was certainly part of my perception of what I was reading.
qb and mark: it wasn’t only that thread. The arguments re women’s reproductive health were already starting up on the Komen threads. That was a big part of why I was taking my time to try to write the fourth part without pointing fingers (at politicians and public figures–not people on the blog) and why I have subsequently decided that there’s just no way to do that right now.
EDIT–I realized I wasn’t specific about what I have chosen not to write. –Michigoose
LikeLike
I get it. I think… .
This will be a recurring issue.
LikeLike
“If I had come into the original VA conversation at the beginning, I would have simply said I thought the statute was dumb, but surely not unconstitutional”
This pretty much captures my position. As a libertarian I have as little use for republican/conservative big government as I do for democratic/liberal/progressive big government.
For what it’s worth, as someone who still posts on Plum Line and here, I find that this place captures the best of Plum Line and manages to leave the worst at the door. My general observation is that engaging with the posters here improves the quality of the commentary, while engaging with a specific subset there worsens it.
I would prefer that all the current posters here remain. For one thing I particularly liked Michigoose’s Airborne story for veterans day.
LikeLike
As I said, I’m not here a lot and so haven’t followed the ins and outs of every discussion. But I think Michi is right that this particular issue was starting to boil before the VA thread, and Mark may be right that the serious damage was done before most people even entered the discussion. And while I’m not going to try to assess what’s fair or not in response to qb’s comment, I suspect if there were a petition sent around to the male commenters on the blog asking them to agree that women have both a greater stake and a more personal interest in how this particular matter plays out, some would sign on and some wouldn’t. This may be the crux of the (ongoing) problem.
LikeLike
I am not convinced there’s a chromosomal explanation that applies to discussions as a general rule. But, as issues go, abortion is one of the few that manages to mix ideology, religion and chromosomes, which makes for a pretty complex discussion where people coming from all directions likely have deeply held views.
LikeLike
I have read and thought about what everyone else has said about this, but I do not agree that the explanation is empathy or competitiveness. I do agree in part with what I take to be michi’s suggestion that discussion of such issues does not seem to be possible, but I have a very different opinion about the reason for that impossibility.
As I noted above, there was little or no sign of upset until the anger exploded. Until then, what I gather is that we (the men) are supposed to have discerned from what was unsaid by the women that anything we were saying was offensive and illegitimate. The tenor of the discussion then became essentially, “Shut up, she explained,” to use the old cliche. Even raising questions about the (assumed) facts of the matter was unacceptable, and I do not see where the tone we used made any difference. On this, I disagree with what I think Mark is saying about mutual recognition, because I do not think that mutual recognition ever was an option. That, I believe, is the crux and the point. We are not allowed to have opposing views on what we call women’s issues, at least not unless they are expressed like Barack Obama’s position on gay marriage: I know my position is backward and wrong, so I am evolving. In the end, that is what it comes down to in my opinion. I’ve read everyone’s explanations and read back over the thread, and that is where I come out. The references to the Komen threads reinforce my belief.
I probably should have let my last “last” word remain my last.
LikeLike
abc:
So let me ask this of those men who found themselves entrenched on the other side of the argument about women’s health: does trying to win a point that others may see as strained really make it worth coming across as indifferent to an issue of bedrock importance to the women who live it?
I don’t want to appear to be ignoring you or dismissing you, abc. But I fear that if I respond to this objectively and sincerely, it will only make matters worse.
I will leave it at this: If there is a topic which is of such bedrock importance that disagreement or challenge or even indifference is intolerable, then it is probably best that it not be introduced as something to be discussed at ATiM.
LikeLike
Scott, speaking from a personal perspective on the VA thread, after reading it again, I thought I was pretty much running with the disagreements and challenges and attempting to explain a different opinion. Instead of going back and reading your own comments, read mine. It wasn’t until you unilaterally claimed it wasn’t rape, even though there were others (not all of them women btw) who believed it could be viewed as that, and then claimed my comment was silly that I gave up. Telling you that you’re not in charge of defining rape wasn’t silly I didn’t think. And then to add insult to injury you said if I wanted to make a rational argument, which I thought I’d been doing for two days, you’d listen, just made it worse.
Speaking from a personal perspective, I’m not afraid of disagreement or challenge and when I read something I’m indifferent to, which happens here quite a bit, I don’t respond at all.
Just the fact that we’ve reached the point here where there are taboo subjects is pretty disheartening.
Thanks for the thought provoking post ABC.
LikeLike
lms:
, I thought I was pretty much running with the disagreements and challenges and attempting to explain a different opinion.
I most definitely agree, you were.
Beyond that, there is much in your characterization of events that is disputable, but, again, recent experience tells me that I am not able to offer my perspective on this without driving you (and perhaps others) further away. So I face a choice: be honest with you about my thinking and risk you departing for good, or keep silent and hope that you stick around. It’s a shitty choice to have to make, particularly in the context of ATiM, but it’s not the first shitty choice I’ve faced and it won’t be the last. So the choice is made.
LikeLike
A few things. First, I think it is entirely possible that we are drawing to broad of a conclusion from this incident. There are aspects to the VA law that made the debate uniquely personal and controversial in my opinion. Maybe I’m wrong, but as was said above, I think people are largely talking past each other now and that has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with communication.
Second, I largely disagree with QB when he says because I do not think that mutual recognition ever was an option. That, I believe, is the crux and the point.
I do agree it is the crux of the issue, but I don’t think mutual recognition was off the table. I can see how he drew that conclusion given what Michi said, but as I said the other day, the conversation continued long after the comment.
If we still want to discuss what led to the angry exchange, I think comments like lmsinca are the way to forge ahead. She explains what she saw based on her perspective. Scott can respond similarly, ideally without telling lmsinca why her perspective is wrong, and I think both parties would be better off having learned something of how the other party viewed their comments. To be honest, that was the sort of conversation Scott and I had when the blog first started and I was nannying him. After a tedious back and forth, I had a much better understanding of Scott’s perspective and have viewed each of his comments in that light ever sense. This is certainly hard to do in this forum so I think we are better off simply moving forward, but if people still want to discuss this that is the route I advocate we take.
LikeLike
ashot
I’m not that interested in reviewing the entire post and critiquing all our comments, we all made mistakes, I just don’t like people thinking I’m a shrinking violet or something and high tail it when the going gets tough. I need to work out how I comment going forward and I guess what subjects I will comment on.
I haven’t found a personality change on ebay yet but I’ll keep looking, and the new sense of humor should arrive any day now………………..lol
LikeLike
I’m not that interested in reviewing the entire post and critiquing all our comments, we all made mistakes,
That wasn’t exactly what I was advocating, but I agree that we should all move on. To be honest I was a bit disheartened by the whole event and scaled back my posts for a few days. However, I don’t think a suitable replacement exists and grand experiments like this will never succeed if we give up. So I’m back.
I need to work out how I comment going forward and I guess what subjects I will comment on.
We all need to work on the former and I’ll leave it up to each individual to decide on the latter.
haven’t found a personality change on ebay yet but I’ll keep looking, and the new sense of humor should arrive any day now………………..lol
I wouldn’t change a thing.
LikeLike
Scott
My characterization is how it felt from my perspective so I wouldn’t expect yours to match. As I said I’m not a shrinking violet and don’t expect to be treated with kid gloves. That was never my desire………………..I do appreciate a fair trial though.
Ashot
However, I don’t think a suitable replacement exists and grand experiments like this will never succeed if we give up. So I’m back.
I guess I am too. I’ve never been a quitter so no reason to start now, but it may be slightly different here on out. Never fear, I have a plan.
LikeLike
“Never fear, I have a plan.”
Lord have mercy on us all. 🙂
LikeLike
hehe, NoVA.
LikeLike
qb: The harsh words didn’t come from us.
Well, that’s a matter of perspective. No doubt, some found the comparison of gun laws to abortion laws as offensive or as hostile as others may have found Goose telling Republicans (re: us) that we could kiss her ass.
Also, there’s that whole “silly” comment. At the same time, I think there are both differences in communication style between genders, generations, and individuals (and other tiers) and it’s probably best to ask for clarification when it we’re reading dismissiveness or condescension, or what have you, in the tone of others. And requests for clarification should be responded to gently, with a purely explanatory approach, rather than with a continued staking out of positions. That is difficult, though.
LikeLike
kevin,
No doubt, some found the comparison of gun laws to abortion laws as offensive or as hostile as others may have found Goose telling Republicans (re: us) that we could kiss her ass.
You can call that a matter of perspective, but they were not at all the same.
For the record, though, I wasn’t “offended” by it and have no desire for recriminations over it. I just took it for what it was and dropped it.
Also, there’s that whole “silly” comment.
I don’t know what you are referring to, but I don’t recall saying that anything the gals said was silly.
LikeLike
bsimon – I actually think we’re all very good at talking across gender lines and getting each other. From childhood on we have a lot of experience in reading both our own and the opposite sex. There are occasional instances when the differences may seem intractable, but I tend to think it’s on a case by case basis, individual to individual, not as each gender squaring off against the other. In the instances where the differences seem set in stone, it may be worth looking for reasons–refusals to yield any point, questions of empathy, people talking past each other. And sometimes as ashot and others have said, it’s best to move on.
LikeLike
“sometimes as ashot and others have said, it’s best to move on.”
agreed
LikeLike