sigelphoenix

Thoughts are coalescing in my head, and I figure it's better to spit them all out now than let them nag at me when I'm trying to do homework ...

Back when I first started following feminist, I remember thinking that I wished it was more debate-friendly, or that I could find a community for debating aspects of feminism. (anti_feminism was, unfortunately, the only thing I found, and I've peeked in on it from time to time to see if it would disprove my view of it as a crock of bullshit. It hasn't.) Sure, there's disagreement on feminist, but often sharply dissenting views will spark hostile reactions, so debate gets stifled. I wanted a place where the atmosphere was more conducive to "civilized debate," like abortiondebate, which I've been following for years. Besides some ground rules about no personal attacks and the like, everything is pretty much free game. Vehemently pro-choice and vehemently pro-life people engage in open conversation with (theoretically) a basic level of respect.

I've seen recently how this whole "we can debate and just be nice to each other" view is a bit naive. I mean, feminism and abortion are two issues which can stir up a huge amount of passion -- and, resultantly, massive flamewars. Maybe you can't have "civilized debate." But if you do try to put up some rules and have polite conversation, well ... is it really worth it?



Take a look at this recent post on abortiondebate. The OP isn't so important as the fact that nearly the entire page of comments are from a person who loudly and plainly says that the father should be able to make the woman carry a pregnancy to term, women who have sex with multiple partners are sluts, and other blatantly misogynist statements. (And yes, the commenter is a woman. Being female doesn't prevent you from being stupid and/or misogynist. Exhibit A: Ann Coulter. Or Christina Hoff Sommers. Or Michelle Malkin. Or, hell, the entire Independent Women's Forum.) And the thing is, none of this is against the rules of abortiondebate until she says something specifically insulting another commenter. But so long as that kind of "personal attack" is avoided, she can go on spewing vitriol about women in general.

Or take Alas, a Blog, a place I've linked to before and where I've found useful information on feminist issues. There's a great deal of ambivalence about this place and its maintainer, Ampersand, because of the way he treats anti-feminists, men's rights activists, and other sexist groups. They're allowed to stay if they play nice in the same way the commenter above is allowed -- basically, they have to talk politely and they're okay. Meanwhile, a feminist who tries to make the point that, oh, women are people who deserve full rights, can get banned for rude speech.

I'm not comfortable with this. I want places where people freely engage in debate, and contradicting opinions are given some amount of credit, but ... is being "fair" like this really fair?

I mean, try this: I used to think that being "colorblind" was a good way to deal with racism. That is, "forget about race and treat everyone the same! *rose-colored glasses*" Of course, that view led me to think there was something wrong with affirmative action -- if we give something extra to minorities, why not to white people too? Of course, in believing this, I forgot the basic fact that whites and minorities aren't starting out at nearly the same level -- minorities need the hand up to get to the same place. Equal rights can sometimes require differential treatment.

In the same way, in a debate forum, finding a way to make women equal might require different rules that give feminism an "advantage" -- even if that advantage just means not opening up the floor to blatantly misogynist views. It's ridiculous to think we should give the same amount of time and credence to the person who says, "Women falsely accuse men of rape," as the person who's trying to find a solution for rape.

Equal treatment? Not really. Promoting equal rights? Definitely. (Or at least trying to.)

If being "fair" requires being so objective that equal rights for women or other oppressed groups is actually an open-ended question, it's not worth it. The thing we should be open-minded about is finding the best way to achieve those rights, not whether they should be had at all. The debate forums mentioned above lose my confidence for letting discrimination parade itself around under the guise of fairness.

And what is it about giving people more credit for being "civilized debaters," anyway? What's so great about being polite and having a rigidly structured argument that falls into neat categories of A+B=C? I mean, sure, I can understand the benefit of being rational and logical -- I've been brought up in academia, and I know the value of a good argument. Hell, rationality and logic are among my primary concerns when I make arguments. But I also understand that these are gendered terms -- that is to say, men have long been in control of academia, so they have determined just what is "rational" or "logical." Further, women, as hormonal and emotional creatures, have been automatically considered less rational or logical, and therefore less intelligent and credible. (The motivation behind the "the personal is political" creed of feminism is from the same kind of bias -- since women were generally at home and not in the public world, their opinions were discounted. But, feminism says, personal experience stems from political structures and leads to political insights.) "Civilized debate" has often been limited to people who display logic or rationality in a certain way, and, furthermore, never raise their voices or get agitated. Instead, they are supercilious and superior -- and always, always right.

Why are emotions -- anger chief among them -- so often a reason to dismiss an argument? Why do people scoff at "raging feminists" or "PMSing women"? I mean, could the reason that women get angry about sexism, or people of color get angry about racism, or queer people get angry about homophobia, be ... these people have reason to be angry? Men/whites/straights don't need to get their feathers ruffled -- the system benefits them. And for the decent human beings who oppose oppression even though they are part of the dominant group -- well, even their anger will never be as visceral, as personal, as that of someone who has experienced the oppression firsthand.

We all have something at stake. People in the oppressed groups want to fix disadvantages. Some people in the dominant groups want to protect their advantages. Insisting on being calm and rational is a way of making sure that people don't rock the boat and upset the status quo -- in other words, making sure the latter groups get their way.

One of my recent favorite songs expresses this idea beautifully:

I am not an angry girl
But it seems like I've got everyone fooled
Every time I say something they find hard to hear
They chalk it up to my anger
And never to their own fear

--"Not a Pretty Girl," Ani DiFranco (look, ma, I quoted ani -- I'm a real live feminist now!)



Oh, and for feminist debate, there's now discussfeminism -- it's relatively new, but it looks promising.