Not All Discussions

I've been holding off for just the right subject to kick off my blog experience and I think I have a good one. To clarify, you may think this post is about recent events but I'm trying to focus on HOW things are discussed, not the things themselves.

A few weeks back, I fell into a pretty horrible trap.  Not one that was laid for me, but one I made for myself and unwittingly sprung during a Facebook discussion.  I admit, it was my fault the trap closed, but at the time I really didn't understand what I was doing wrong.  If you're paying attention to the subject line, you may be able to guess what I said and maybe even the subject matter under discussion.  Yeah, I used the "not all men" line. 

The person posting was a pretty forceful writer and made a blanket statement about the horrible things that men do to women out in the world.  I don't want to go into the word-by-word of the discussion, as the meat of it isn't really pertinent and you've probably already read a dozen like it.  Like good barbecue, the coating of shame marinade and embarrassment sauce is where the flavor lies.  My statement amounted to commenting on her discussion style.  I agreed with what she was saying, but I've been taught by experience that when discussing facts and trying to find solutions, generalizations are almost ALWAYS bad.  If I were to say "black people play basketball well", I'd be in the wrong.  Yes, some black people play basketball well.  Yes, it is a very popular sport within that demographic.  But basketball isn't something all black people play, never mind well.  That generalization is not only inaccurate but also perpetuates a racist stereotype. If my intention was to comment on the percentage of black people in the NBA, the importance of the sport in predominantly black urban areas or any number of other valid points, it would be lost in the over simplification of the statement.   I understand that the original statements in both cases did not say "all", but because it's a generalization it is implied.  I lost focus on the subject matter and thought it would be helpful to make an observation about generalization being a bad point on which to start a debate.  I actually used the words "not all men", but not to make the "not all men are rapists" argument.  At that point, I hadn't read much about that argument and how it is effects the debate about inequality.

You can imagine the response.  I was hit with angry responses immediately, fast and furious and from multiple people.  Surprised and a little hurt, as I agreed with the point being made but just wanted to identify a difficulty in discussion technique, I stepped further into the conversational quicksand and tried to elaborate on my statement.  As this was occurring on Facebook, the statements were rather short and I thought clarifying my intentions and restating my position a little clearer might remedy my first error.  Newp.  The discussion involved both men and women in it, but once I dropped in my two cents, it was just the women...and here I was explaining myself and still defending my statement.  Yup, I got called on mansplaining.  At the time, I had never even heard the term. I was most definitely not trying to talk down to anyone, but hindsight is 20/20.  I never even considered how it looked, just that my words seemed to be twisting on themselves to mire me deeper into the "bad" end of the pool where the cigar-chomping, secretary-chasing chauvinist misanthropes wallowed.  I had assumed it was the common effect of short-form electronic text media making clear communication difficult to interpret.

During the course of this exchange, I apologized multiple times, asked for clarification of definitions and generally tried to understand the nature of the offense I had given.  Unfortunately, tempers had been stoked and the tone of the discussion got fairly ugly. To be fair, I also snapped at folks a couple times because there is only so much abuse one can take, even when in the wrong.  No matter what I said, no matter how I tried to extricate myself from my self-made trap, I was further pilloried.  In trying to explain the generalization issue, I used the terms "male" and "female" and was skewered by one person for using outdated, demeaning terms.  Apparently, in some circles "female" is offensive because it's how you describe breeding livestock.  There was a moment of levity when one of the women on the dogpile backed up and admitted she must not be a good feminist because she was also not aware of "female" being used in that context and had been using it in other discussions, but was actually barked down by the originator of the post because her statement "wasn't on topic".  Apparently, the topic was how horrible I was and no mercy was to be shown.  In the end, I apologized one last time, got cursorily dismissed as a misogynist pig (paraphrasing) and unfriended the person involved as she was barely an acquaintance and I certainly didn't want her being offended by any of my own apparently horrific posts.

Stymied and still a bit upset that I really didn't understand what I had done that deserved being vilified so badly, I showed the entire exchange to my wife a few days later.  I am prone to statements and opinions that tend to rub folks the wrong way (both intentionally and unintentionally) and she is far better at making her case in way that causes the least offense.  She is a God-send to a guy who has permanent sneaker prints in his soft palate. In particular, I was hoping to illuminate this "mansplaining" thing. My initial comment may have started the storm, but my further involvement in it seemed to really bring the thunder.  I was sick over having upset so many people and needed to understand.  After reviewing it, she pointed out that the core of my mistake was changing the subject away from the original content and towards the manner of debate.  Once I saw that, some of the rage I provoked made more sense. She explained how "not all men" is used against feminist statements, which made me feel sicker yet because I was guilty of it and moreso because it's disgusting that opponents of equality use it knowingly for that purpose. She further pointed out that although I wasn't mansplaining in the sense of trying to talk down to women because the are somehow incapable of understanding, it appeared so because of the nature of the debate, my own shift to a different subject and... surprise, surprise... because of the problems in communicating by text in a context that limited response length.  She also noted that several of the comments were insulting, demeaning and rude, that once the anger came up most lost all sense of propriety, and confirmed that the worst of them could be described with a word I wouldn't say in front of sailors.

This was a few weeks ago, and I'm thinking of it again because of the drama created when Ann Hornaday, a journalist with the Washington Post, wrote an op-ed piece about the UCSB killings.  In it, she called our popular media's effects on rape culture and specifically named Seth Rogen's most recent movie, The Neighbors, as an example of films depicting and glorifying the objectification of women.  I haven't seen the film, so I don't know if it's Porky's reborn, just a little adolescent or something in between, but I barely registered the name-drop because it was secondary to the point being made. Rogen and director Apatow responded with a series of tweets addressing how they were disgusted that the article intimated that film were to blame for creating a misogynist killer, with their film given as the only example.  I'm paraphrasing a lot here, so don't just read my Reader's Digest summary. Y'all can go Google the entire thing from several points of view.  What you'll find when you do are horrible people popping off with comments that generalize the wickedness of men in both real-life and movies, and equally horrible people grunting out ape-like bullshit about mens' rights and reverse discrimination and all totally missing the broader, longer discussion that was started about media's influence on rape culture. What caught my eye was how NOBODY seemed to be able to have a discussion without resorting to generalizations.  I read Hornaday's article and she had a focused point on one aspect of the debate.  I read Rogen's tweets, and he had a point about one aspect of the article.  After that, it became generalizations by all parties involved, including the media audience. Those conglomerated around the pair like kindergarten children circling two arguing classmates chanting "Fight!  Fight! Fight!"

Doesn't it seem like we're all just playing by a FoxNews-inspired script of "Us vs. Them"?  If I make a statement that you disagree with, I must be against you?  If you make a statement that clearly needs to be discussed and explored for each of us to come to an understanding...."TL;DR, I hate you!"  If your statement includes words or phrases that poorly communicate your point or inadvertently makes different point, I must be a deplorable enemy if I point out the problem?  And, Holy Mother of Gonesh, if I actually do not understand what I am doing wrong and ask for clarification...well, I'm already lost and worthy of derision because I'm not fully tapped into every aspect of human culture and language as you see it.  Does anyone else see this?  Even when we aren't talking about politics, it's like we automatically seek bipartisan thought.  You're a feminist or a chauvinist. Period. You're pro or anti-gun. Period.  You either think Eliott Rodger was the most heinous of criminals because he hated women, or you think he's a victim of his mental illness. Period.

Where did nuanced discussion in search of understanding go?  Where did patient explanation of terms and facts go?  Why can't folks see that in some situations, both explanations are in play? Why is generalization, which I think is what causes a lot of the factional disagreement, tolerated in even the most enlightened discussions?  I'm not saying the "not all men" argument is right.  It hides a larger problem and is used by some of the worst types of men who want to deflect the argument away from themselves.  It's also annoying as a mosquito bite on your knuckle for women to hear it every time they try to discuss rape culture, even if it is coming from non-rapists, as it ignores the content of the statement instead of the way it's being made. But since when is it unthinkable to say "some men" or "rapists" or "misogynists" instead of using the word that describes the entire gender, particularly when we are chatting, texting, tweeting or otherwise limiting our word count and accuracy of each word matters?  When they aren't constrained by an artificial limit, why aren't folks using whatever words are required to make a clearer point?  And, again beseeching my Pachyderm Pontiff, why are we all jumping to sides if something doesn't seem to fit exactly how we feel or think?  It seems to me that the clearest communication possible would be desired to help sweep away any straw man arguments or deflections.  Emotions, ever the bane of rational debate, can only get inflamed if communication gets muddy because of sloppy use of language.  And finally, running up a flag and drawing borders around your idea automatically casts everyone who doesn't happen to match your particular shade of belief as opposition, even if you agree on a more nuanced level.

Or, I could be wrong.

(Note:  The author does not believe in Gonesh or practice any aspect of Hinduism.  He does, however, like what Gonesh represents and thinks a deity with an elephant's head is a pretty neat idea. Better than all those flowing beards and lightning bolts.  I mean, think about it: hands AND a trunk?  Who wouldn't want that?)

TADA!  It finally happened.  After months of trying to decide how to approach this blogging thing I think I've finally found my hook.  Anyone who knows me in person knows...well, I can be a bit grumpy.  Downright angry at times, but generally a bit brusque and sorely irritated by stupidity and ignorance.  I tend to get into discussions easily, as I enjoy interacting and sharing ideas, but quickly get a bit heated when disagreement occurs and the opposite party won't admit to even seeing my point.  For my part, I'm not innocent of being stubborn, repetitive and argumentative, but I've tried to adopt a "agree to disagree" policy when I see that happening with a modicum of success.

So, why the blog?  Well, I've discovered that folks don't like it when you clog up their Facebook posts or other social media outlets with your opinion.  Perhaps it's a leftover from my days on LiveJournal, but I always assume that when you post something up for all your followers to see, that you don't mind folks interacting and discussing the subject.  After all, if you didn't want discussion why would you scrawl your thoughts out there for everyone to see and leave commenting open?  I am wrong about this is all but a few cases.  Most folks seem to want only positive reinforcement for what they are saying, and I can see why they feel that way.  Facebook isn't a journal or blog in the traditional sense.  It's a place to jot down thoughts, share your disappointments or triumphs, share silly memes or interesting links and generally interact on the web's equivalent of cocktail party chat.  Some folks post up political stories, but they do so when they feel the folks who are friends with them will agree on the position of the writer.  Some few, very dear friends of mine appreciate a polite dissenting opinion or observation, but they are few and far between and their network of friends and contacts often do not.  Long story short (too late), Facebook is a slightly vain exercise and really not a good forum for folks to explore complex issues from many points of view.

What makes this blog work?  I want there to be a free discussion of every point of view.  I *know* I'm not always right about many subjects.  I love hearing positions that differ from mine and make me reconsider my opinions.  When I rant about something, I surely enjoy the support of folks who are in agreement, but I'd like a forum where a dissenting opinion has a chance to be heard and considered.  I like it when folks of differing sides can come together and find the boundaries of where they disagree.  Perhaps somebody has a point that makes those boundaries move.  Maybe it can be found that those boundaries don't actually exist in any meaningful way.  Compromise, ever the boogeyman of modern politics, can be discovered. 

Ideas, people, are worthless unless they are tested.  Unless you actually consider you might be wrong and check the assumptions and facts you have based them upon.  Curse my high school math teachers, but you need to do the proofs and check your work and the only way to do that is to hear the other side.  So...here's the forum for just that.