So, I’m talking to Ampersand, and he says that he’s chatting on a mailing list, having a frustrating conversation about some political hot topic, and I respond,
“Bleagh. You really like debate, don’t you?”
Well, of course he does.
Me, though? I hate it. I would MUCH rather read the positions of people I disagree with, or listen to them talk without having to respond. (And then if I had to respond, do it all in one chunk, and then meander off.) The back-and-forth “No I’M right” “No I AM”… ugh, ugh, ugh, ugh, ugh.
I associate debate with power games, attempts at manipulation, and a confrontational mindset. Is this gendered? Well, maybe — I’ve noticed that 90% of the people who have attempted to wrangle me into debates and refused to let me stop talking about the subject even after I’ve expressed my clear desire to stop… are men. Often men who are around my age, who say they’re delighted to find someone articulate! political! and informed! The mere fact that I’m capable of debating means I must want to listen to their theories on Ayn Rand or… whatever. And then rebut them! Rather than ignoring the argument I’ve heard 100 times and talking about cute graphics on Animal Crossing, which isn’t any less productive, certainly, and doesn’t make my heart pound or make me think the other person is a jackass.
And especially in verbal debates, where there’s no recourse to the internet… oh, ugh. “Semi-colons are used just like colons!” says College Guy I barely know, who has asked me to proofread his essay because I’m a professional writer, and is now repaying the favor by arguing stridently against my critiques. “Um, no, semi-colons are properly used in two ways…” But College Guy Must Be Right.
But the dynamic can’t totally be gendered. Mike and I are at Thanksgiving this year, and my aunt is talking about how lazy poor people are. Mike is melting into a pile of goo, because these arguments hit home for a guy who grew up eating from the dented can store. “Please, can we change the subject?” I ask. “We’re really uncomfortable. You’re really hurting our feelings. Maybe this isn’t the best time or topic.” But no — we just don’t understand because we don’t have EXPERIENCE of the world, there is no such thing as a hard-working poor person who can’t make ends meet.
And besides, it’s not that Amp is somehow socialized to be more comfortable with debate than I am. His interest in debate, and my disinterest, cannot be explained by the differences in our sex.
There are a lot of kinds of political discussion I *am* interested in. Conversation, negotiation, mind-stretching, talking about things, and talking things out. But as soon as the confrontational comes in, the sense that it’s me AGAINST you, instead of me AND you trying to work out an idea? I’m gone. Strong disinterest.
Which is probably why I have no particular interest in chatting with people with whom I have irreconcilable views. There’s no way for me and a person who believes gay people are going to hell to work out an idea of how gay marriage should work as a cooperative exercise. We’re always going to be in opposition. How tedious. How fruitless. How obnoxious. I’d rather be talking to the radical queers who want to abolish marriage in the first place, to discuss whether there’s anything salvageable in the Western family structure (I’d probably say yes) — we disagree, but there’s a basic level of respect.
I tell Amp this, in shorthand, and he replies that in debates there’s often less politics of the interpersonal at stake than in other kinds of conversations. I can’t say I totally understand this, since my instinct is so strongly against competitive conversation, but maybe some of y’all do.
Again, I like being exposed to opposing points of view — at least within my Overton Window of acceptability — but I’d much rather be exposed in such a way that does not involve direct, personal confrontation and power games.
So, the conversation made me wonder how other people who read the blog might feel. How do you feel about debate versus collaborative argument?
I’m only opening this post to comments from people who accept the inherent dignity and worth of all people. I’m sure that the rest of y’all have interesting points on the subject, but… another time, another place. Hopefully, if I’m involved, in a collaborative way.
I think that debate can be collaborative. I remember when I was in high school – the last 2 years in a boarding school – the interminable boredom of weekends. Stuck on a campus surrounded by miles and miles of farms. Debate was entertaining, intellectually engaging, and fun. The topic didn’t matter, the debate did. The important thing was to hold your logic together, to close any potential holes and to find and exploit the holes in your opponent’s argument. Other people would often join in and then it was team against team. We’d congratulate each other for good or inventive logic & odd but relevant ideas. The point wasn’t really to win so much as to not lose. Tangents were an irresistable means of escaping from an impending loss. It was, and can be, a fun game. Like chess or Monopoly. I can’t remember anybody engaging in ad hominem. And somehow, it seemed collaborative.
As a result, I enjoy debate. I especially enjoy it when it takes place in an athmosphere of mutual respect. These days I find debate to be both entertaining and educational. There is an awful lot that I don’t know and I often learn something new over the course of a debate.
When mutual respect doesn’t exist, then I get competitive. I’m not a usually a competitive person, so that’s a moderately rare experience for me.
Debate shouldn’t be a personal confrontation or contain power games. That’s an argument. Which is not to say that debate shouldn’t challenge dearly held beliefs or that a debate cannot devolve into an argument.
But there’s no reason everybody should like the games I enjoy. Lots of people like hockey. Great, just leave me out of that.
Wanna trade friend codes?
—Myca
I love debating, but then I’ve never been a very successful girl. I don’t like shouting matches and it’s possible I like the online equivalent even less, but reasoned debate where people actually bring evidence and criticize eachother’s logic, that’s the best way for me to learn.
One of the ways I’m not a convincing girl is precisely that I can’t deal very well with collaborative arguments. I get very uncomfortable with deliberately obfuscating social cues about power differentials, or having to tie myself in knots to pretend that disagreements aren’t real, profound disagreements, but we’re just “collaborating” and “negotiating”. (I’m not trying to convince you, Mandolin, that you should engage in more confrontational debates, this is purely my personal experience.)
There’s such a thing as bad debate; sure, you get people who are just trying to score points or forcing you into debate because it’s fun for them. And you get debates that you have already been through a million times and you’re not learning anything new, but the other participants may be at a different stage in the process. But still, debate (as opposed to both hostile arguments and collaborative arguments) is the big reason why I continue to read and participate in Alas.
I am just doing my roundup reading when I came across this post. I have to say, whether you know it or not, you’ve hit a powerful feminist issue, especially for blogs. I like debate. I’m in a profession where people get to review and criticize people’s work before publishing it. We debate approaches and logic. I am used to it and enjoy it. I can have a lively debate with someone where they point out all the weaknesses in my argument and still have dinner with them. Yeah, it is about me taking responsibility for my own feelings for my work. Sure, passion gets to me, but it is about allowing myself to have it and to not blame others. Much like men and women have to learn to have sexual passion, which is messy, but nice girls can debate passionately and nice girls can have sexual passion. And I think the demand for women to be “nice” always is tied to never allowing them to have their passion, even for ideas. When you never get any practice at it, then no wonder it makes everyone nervous, because there is passion about ideas. Don’t deny it. Few women get practice at it, because nice girls are socialized to avoid disagreement and always, always be responsible for everyone’s feelings. Hell, they can’t even many times, handle their own!
Debate can be about making things better and the work. When you can have that environment at work or debating with friends and work peers, it’s really wonderful. In any case, I love it and that is why I got into the work I do.
Now, both men and women can be sensitive to this. I manage men and women, and the men can be taken aback by a woman who will challenge their ideas, but I think it can be harder for women to be challenged and not reach for the strategies of the disempowered…the “who do she think she is?” In this case, I’m the leader, but I expect everyone to challenge at the editorial table. I’ve criticized the work of new hires right out of college and some really think at first I must dislike them. Nope. It’s the work. I wonder what the hell is going on in their past education where no one is allowed to say anything about their work, except “it’s fabulous.” Anything other than praising and nice-mothering is you being a “bitch.” Really? Nonsense. We have got to get over the “nice girl/bad girl-bitch” archetypes even in our feminist circles in how we can debate one another and to learn to not be afraid of our passion behind ideas.
I can’t imagine that Rachel Maddow would have gotten anywhere being afraid of being “too” for her challenges to others ideas and thinking.
It’s the ideas that could use some work. I really wish that students got some of the experience I got at school in learning about how to review each other’s work quickly. Positive input is great and necessary…but so are the challenges…the questions…the suggested new directions.
For my new hires, that can take a while for them to get used to other people saying stuff about their ideas without taking it personally or resorting to “I know you are but what am I” retorts to their peers that you can see on blogs with others challenge their ideas. But I have a very low turnover of staff, because what we do is exciting, rewarding, and once you get a taste of a great group of people urged to be their best, you don’t want to leave.
But, again, a number of women have been socialized to never ever disagree and to disagree is being “mean” or insert a not so nice girl adjective here. A few bloggers are absolutely ego manics and their site is about worship, not real discussion. If you disagree with the blogger, they will disallow you to post, sometimes in a way that is so one-sided it would make Fox News proud. The blogger is allowed to insult the poster in schoolyard jeers, complete with minions agreeing with the bully, then the poster’s response is censored, so they never get to reply. I saw this today at a blog about fat acceptance today, in fact. They couldn’t “accept,” I guess. Ironic. Let’s get beyond some sort of middle school facebook school yard politics on feminist blogs and demand more from the cross comments.
I’ve seen this at a couple of “big name” feminist sites where you’re a bad girl if you disagree or are critical of another’s woman’s ideas. I creates a pretty low bar, though to have to dash out and stamp out any fire going on. People get passionate, and that is different from being a bitch. But some women set the bar so low. NO criticism of another’s idea or words is allowed and that dangerously can make us like the right wing that had to live in an echo chamber. It’s also a feminist issue because it’s all about control for the girls in the schoolyard to call out others for being “too” something. Too loud. Too proud (not sufficiently self-effacing). Too direct. Too sticking out. Insert your “too” here. It’s a feminist isssue to only allow and be comfortable with absolute agreement and murmurs of agreement that is never “too.” They can be themselves and have their own thoughts, if they ask if it is okay with everyone first. Women are always responsible for everyone’s feelings always — now that is a trap we have to get out of. Some call debate a power game, but the absolute tyranny of always being responsible for everyone’s feelings and the power game of calling any woman as hurtful who has a question about your ideas, a different angle, or who may point out where you are wrong with your facts or something….it’s a social power game to call them a bitch when they are probably, well, just woman who thinks and questions. But I understand…to some, it ain’t ladylike. And the game over what is “ladylike” and who is more likable…now you talk about power games….
A woman should be able to say her opinion without saying…”now this may be stupid but…” or some sort of curtesy or self-effacing joke to the girls. Be sure not to sound too smart or proud too before writing. That is really not what feminism was about for me. Be yourself. Even if it is Loud. Proud. Smart. Challenging. And if you want to be, debating.
We have to be able to have places where there is vigorous and vibrant debate encouraged for women.
Somewhere–I wish I could find it–I have an essay that as published a long time ago in The Georgia Review about the military-like, competitive aspects of the intellectual work done in academia. She talked about it in terms of the writing professors must do, as well as in terms of conference presentations, where the point of presenting what you have to say can often devolve into “destroying” the arguments of others. Indeed, if you think about the metaphors we use to talk about debate and argument, it is very clear that, culturally, we construct argument as a kind of battle. The whole notion of college as a “marketplace of ideas,” to take another example, foregrounds a kind of competition in which “winning” can have a lot more to do with marketing than with the quality of the idea in question. I wish I could remember where I read it, but I have always liked the alternative metaphor someone proposed for argument: that we ought to think of it like a dance–this sort of gets at some of what Mandolin says in the post; and it captures something of what Jake said, I think–in which two people work together to make something beautiful, and in which the process of making is inherently a process of collaboration. For myself, once I stopped caring about changing people’s minds–which is impossible anyway; if they change their minds it will because they did it, not you–it became a lot easier just to say what I had to say and then let my words do whatever work they were going to do without being invested in being right.
I agree for similar reasons – I tend to associate the word “debate” with a particular kind of disagreement that is aggressive, binaristic (either you’re right or I am, and I’m going with the latter), and not especially productive.
Obviously not all debates are like this. But that is what the word connotes to me – arguments that it was difficult to back out of gracefully, long-term back-and-forths on the internet with little gain on either side.
Love discussion, though, and luckily that is something I get often in my field. You do get debaters in grad classrooms – sometimes the professor is culpable – and sometimes you get aggressive look-at-me! questioners at conferences. But much of the time I find that my colleagues are amenable to multivocality, considering options, recognizing their standpoint/privilege if they can, conceding points, building toward a better argument/interpretation/theory/etc.
That feels great.
I love debate although I somehow managed to get through school without much instruction on the ins and outs of it. I love it because I think it is a fun and enjoyable game of ideas as Jake Squid mentioned in his comment up there. But I also like it because it forces me to really think about my opinions on certain matters. And sometimes when my arguments are bad and I am engaged with someone who has some good points, it helps me change my mind.
I used to argue all the time. Generally about technical ideas, rather than political or social, but argue all the same. At some point I just realized it was unproductive and always left somebody feeling awful. (A cynical view would say that this was around the time that I started losing, but I think it was around the time I started caring how other people felt – much later than I should have.) So I just swore off it. If someone says something I disagree with now? I just state my point of view, then if they are inclined to argue, drop it. Much less painful all around, and I doubt it made much difference to what anyone thinks.
I totally hear what you’re saying. One problem I’ve had is that someone wants to have a “debate” about something in which they have no personal stake but where mine is huge. An alleged friend from college used to do this all the time on my personal blog. He would come on in the comments and lecture me about how my understanding of my religion was wrong, my relationship was immature because the guy and I are not married, women and men are so fundamentally different that I can’t even understand the difference because of my weak woman brain, abortion is murder and any woman who doesn’t think so is defective, etc etc etc.
When I got annoyed and refused to “debate” that just proved that I was a weak emotional woman, not that he was entering my personal space and attempting to introduce his “objective truths” which just happened to disparage everything about me. If he was so wrong, why couldn’t I logically refute him?
Although this was the worst case, this is frequently my experience in internet debate. When the debate is so one sided, when we’re talking about one person’s amusement and the other person’s entire life, it’s not really a debate.
I am that person in the xkcd cartoon – the one who can’t go to bed because someone is wrong on the Internet (and if I leave, they might keep being wrong!). I’m working on that because it’s rather pointless.
But on-line, I wouldn’t go into a forum where everyone was opposed to something I value and try to argue with them. I don’t think I would even do what RonF does here. The Internet and blogs and on-line discussion groups are “for” a lot of things and serve a lot of different purposes, but personally, I prefer to hang out in places where certain baseline principles are understood and shared and discuss/debate within those parameters. I also find it easier to come back from a serious disagreement if I know the person and I share a lot of other views.
For that same reason, I prefer to debate conservatives I know in real life because the non-political connections I have with the person, the ways I know them to be a good person in X or Y way, help me keep it civil and make a better faith effort to understand where they’re coming from.
I think there is a strongly gendered aspect to this. As early as high school, when more people start to have some political opinions and follow the news, I noticed that as soon as I started to get, um, I think of it as “passionate” but other people seemed to read it as “angry,” that everyone else would just shut down. This was much, much more common among girls than among boys. They were made profoundly uncomfortable by even having a discussion in which people were getting worked up. This was really frustrating to me because I felt like “Come on … we’re just getting started … don’t just leave me hanging here.” Often they would concede, and I knew they didn’t really feel that way. I found that frustrating, but I also felt bad that my reaction had that effect.
Some of this is, no doubt, personality, but I do think a lot of girls and young women are socialized to avoid conflict. I’ve tried to work on moderating my reaction – not to not debate, but keep my voice even, my tone collegial. It really wasn’t that I wanted to dominate or control the conversation. I just care about this stuff a lot, and it comes out. But I don’t want to be an asshole, and I don’t want to shut people down. I’ve reached a point where I’m pretty good at that, as long as the other person isn’t being demeaning or aggressive toward me in their debating style.
With men, there is a different gendered aspect. Some men think they like to debate, but they actually cannot stand for a woman to disagree with them and not back down after the first round or two. They have to win, and they’re usually competitive types in general. But that it’s a woman arguing with them just heightens the stakes.
I wanted to respond to this part. I feel like my brain doesn’t really work this way. One reason I like debate, both participating in it and listening to/reading it, is that if I read something that holds together with its own internal logic, I often have a hard time seeing what’s wrong with it until people start debating it. The back-and-forth, the argument and counter argument, are how I process arguments and positions and work through them.
I’m one of those people that loves to debate the things that piss people off: religion, politics, cultural “norms.” I’ve occasionally alienated people by doing so. Basically, my stance is “convince me,” and every now and then someone surprises me, actually convinces me of something. To be fair, nobody’s ever going to convince me that being gay is wrong or that everyone who doesn’t love jesus is going to hell, but occasionally I get some insight into what it’s like to be a person who believes these things. And I think that can help me be more compassionate and understanding of the causes of these (and maybe all) divisive beliefs: pride and fear. And if there’s one thing debating has taught me, it that it’s not always the other person that’s prideful and/or afraid.
I haven’t thought a whole lot about this, but I do know that one of my pet peeves is the person who, when you start talking about something that you are unsure about and would like to figure out better, decides to twist it around via some semantic whatever, in a subtle way, so that it is a whole minute before you realize they are playing games with you. It makes you feel so stupid. Not even having a discussion at all, and not having the decency to say they haven’t got time to talk about it. I have only encountered two of these creatures, but that was enough. I don’t like playing games, especially when I can’t win, and I almost always have better things to do.
Then there’s the party who can’t see any nuances or outside factors in a situation at all, e.g., the one who says poor people are all lazy, or some god wants me to do this or that, and these are just not worth wasting time on because they won’t think at all, won’t either learn anything from you nor teach you anything useful. Some, of course, might be smart enough to say that x is something they personally don’t want to talk about. There’s a reason for the proverb that with strangers one shouldn’t discuss religion, sex or politics.
I too am not that comfortable with the military metaphor/model, though I have at times had some nice victories, and the marketplace one doesn’t work all that well either. In some cases it might be more appropriate to think of an expedition into a new territory, or an archeological dig, with people working together to bring to light parts of a subject and figure out what to do with them. Or an engineering project to build a theory that is logically sound as can be yet does not hurt any innocents involved.
But the person who is only interested in rhetorically kicking my butt, by verbal combat or by “selling” me their ideas at the price of my totally abandoning mine, is not useful there. They seem to be more interested in one-upmanship than in whatever idea or issue is on the table, and that isn’t productive for me.
I had a crappy education and did not learn formal debate. But I have learned a lot of…something, from blogs such as Alas, Echidne, Hugo, and Making Light.
I hate debating in most contexts. I don’t mind the competitive part, but I do mind the fruitless, not going to change anyone’s mind part. I don’t like proselytizing in any form, and like richard said above, if someone changes their mind, great. If not, oh well. It’s not my responsibility to argue til I’m blue in the face and make someone see my point of view. It feels like a profound waste of time and a stupid reason to get worked up to debate something with people who aren’t open to hearing what I have to say.
Well, it’s not that I don’t think I’ve ever learned anything from Alas, obviously. But I find it a lot more fruitful to see you all, for instance, try to come up with an ethics of debate than I do to, say, discussing with a conservative whether or not gay marriage takes away rights from Christians. “No it doesn’t,” you can say, and “Yes, churches will OBVIOUSLY be forced to marry gay people, because of the way Catholics are currently forced to marry DIVORCED people, oh wait.” And then that’s it, why continue to bother? My thinking on this is clear enough; there’s certainly nothing the other person can offer me in a confrontational situation. (Oh, really, you DO eat shrimp? But gay people are damned to hell for lying with a man as they would a woman? Good logic. Goodbye.) I mean, most internet debates of the liberal v conservative kind are extremely well-tread.
To be clear: I don’t mind reading other people debating. But I find it alternately boring and upsetting to engage in, depending on the context.
Whereas if there’s knowledge to be *shared*, or questions to provoke thought… I find that a lot more interesting, and much more likely to clarify my own thought process.
I totally get the “as soon as I get passionate” comment. Then you are angry, then you are a bitch. This is a reason people call Jeanne Garofolo a bitch. But is she a bitch or is she a strong woman who will get out there and debate.
I think there is a subtle pressure even on many feminist sites to not disagree, hold your hands nicely in your lap, and nod. And that is a shame. We can get into that nice girl/mean girl, mother/bitch labeling of people. If you aren’t mothering and agreeable to everyone’s idea, then you are a bitch. And the shame of it is, women doing this to other women. If you are critical of what another poster says, then you are a bitch and hurt feelings. How many of us noticed this during the election (a passionate time, I must say)? But how crucial to discuss and debate ideas? We have to get past the need to be an echo chamber. Otherwise, we are just like the worst of the right wing echo chamber.
Really, I think intellectual passion is tied in a way to sexual freedom of women. That ability to select who we want, say no to others, and enjoy ourselves passionately and openly and strongly. When you see that, are you in a rush to tamp down any passion or disagreement among women? Or can you be okay with it? Is it okay to NOT always be totally responsible for everyone’s self esteem and emotions in how they take your ideas, and even criticism? Sure, you shouldn’t be an abusive ass, but it is a feminist issue that, if you’re a woman, you’re always responsible to make sure that everyone is okay with what you are sayiing and you are always responsible for their feelings when you disagree with them.
I loathe verbal debate. My aversion to things that are, or look like, arguing is so strong that I will outright lie about what I think rather than engage in it. On-line I’m much more forthright, partially because I have more time to formulate my response (fast back and forth is so not my forte), and partially because very few of my real-life relationships are impacted by what I argue here.
In real life, I’m afraid I look rather like a concern troll. I’ll agree with someone’s basic premise (even if I strongly disagree) and then start bringing up my concerns – aka the reasons I don’t actually agree with them – one at a time.
I’ve actually had some luck with this approach, which is funny because it’s annoying as heck on the internet. But in real life, I actually have gradually talked some people around to nearly opposite points of view from where they started.
I have very similar feelings to Mandolin on the debate issue – it’s generally not a pleasant intellectual interchange for me. If it’s about something I deeply care about and believe, then I’m not interested in someone’s reasons for disagreeing because it’ll just piss me off. If it’s not about something I care deeply about, then why argue?
I like debate when it is collaborative — and I hate it when it isn’t, especially on the internet, where it’s really easy to dehumanize people. I read this post this morning and didn’t have a response, but this afternoon someone wrote a post responding to one of my posts — a really, really frustrating response with really, really frustrating comments, that I’ve decided not to engage with, because my blood is currently boiling and I feel a little ill, and what’s the appeal of blogging again…?
It is, of course, the potential for collaborative conversations with all kinds of fascinating people. It’s worth it for that, but wow. No debating for me. Ugh.
Unfortunately, the experience we see to often is: “hey this is my idea/thinking,” “hey I can’t get behind that idea” “you are a troll” “you’re an asshole” and the internets aren’t often making this any better. You just find an echo chamber where everyone understands “the lists” The list of correct thinking. The list of people that’s okay to hate. The word “troll” even gets used for all situations where you disagree, even politely disagree. It’s kind of like calling a woman “angry” or “hysterical.” It’s become a way of saying “don’t stick out too much” and “don’t threaten the kingpins.”
When women can’t criticize and idea and even compete at work by speaking up with their different ideas without fear of being unlikable and an ugly troll, it’s a feminist issue. When women can’t bring themselves to advocate for themselves at work or in life, we all lose. In the classroom, when female students will not express an opinion unless it is safety held by the powerful or the majority, it is a loss. I’m sure you’ve seen this. We have to get away from demonizing all conflict that women have. We have to get away from the notion that if you assert ideas different from the clique that you are personally responsible for their feelings. You are personally responsible to make it okay with everyone.
Ironically, there’s a huge appetite for reality shows where people sit in judgment and criticize others. Have you noticed?
Finally, remember, we all think we are right. We judge that our current way of thinking is right or we wouldn’t have it and we judge the ideas of others, even silently. We all do. Judgment is not bad. Having a stand on an issue is not bad. Pointing out problems with other’s thinking is not bad or make you a bad girl. Even passion and even anger is not bad. However, I don’t think we’ve made enough progress in feminism to where all of these things are an indifferent issue for women. I wish it were an indifferent issue to ask the question: do you like to debate or not, but there is so much societal noise and pressure to filter out before you can answer that question and so much of it is around, what makes a nice, likable girl?
Here’s an alternative to looking at it like a feminist issue in that way: maybe the idea of aggression played out in a conversational context is an expression of social power that feminists should reject.
In other words, really, saying that those of us who don’t like to debate are just being “nice girls?” Really, that’s pretty condescending.
She said, debating.
Pingback: The Debate Link
When I’m reading through these responses, I’m thinking not everyone is defining debate the same way. I think I like to debate, but some of the things people who don’t like debate are describing are things I don’t like either. I know I’ve had the experience of people interpreting my “worked up” for “upset” and wanting to call the whole thing off. But on the other hand, I don’t like aggressive, domineering types of argumentation. Does the person who I interpret as being aggressive think they’re just worked up?
I’m 100 percent with you. But you know confrontation scares the shit out of me.
I do get into situations in the real world (internet isn’t really a problem for me) where I worry that I’m letting down social movements that I care about, or that I’m complicit in fucked up shit, or that I’m perhaps not adequately working on my privilege because I’m avoiding confrontation.
Debate is like sex. It can be an enjoyable, rewarding activity for two if it is done honestly, with mutual respect/caring, and with clearly established boundaries. But if one approaches it looking to prove one’s superiority, play power games, or when one lacks of caring and empathy toward one’s partner, it generally turns out uncomfortable and quite often painful.
And also like sex, society has dumped a whole mess of patriarchal conditioning on us, encouraging people (mostly men) to look on it as a way to prove their mighty phallic dominance instead of a source of mutual understanding/pleasure. But when you have a partner who isn’t burdened with all that, it’s a pleasant way to explore the intricacies of an idea together.
I think you are right about people not defining debate all in the same way. There is a debate spectrum. My point is that should not be a dirty word.
It’s my belief that the world needs your ideas, especially in one place or another. It may be you have to handle conflict in your marriage and friendships. It may be that you miss out at work in getting the team to explore and take on your idea. Stepping out and handling conflict and stepping out and “outing” your ideas and thinking is absolutely necessary to get the best, out of yourself and out of others. That’s my opinion….ha.
It is a power thing too, because that sort of influence to direction to your little society is a leadership thing. Even in a little clique on a blog somewhere. If you can get someone to say “what she said…” that can be so threatening to what someone sees as their power and role in the pecking order.
At work, all of a sudden, you could be seen as a leader in some way. And that can upset the kitty cart of all of those who thought you were a natural follower. Even other women can judge you as not being nice enough if you don’t preface your thoughts with “well..this may be stupid but” or “well, I may be wrong but…” As a feminist, you know that women get defined as a natural helpmate, and anything else is the “not good” woman.
Good girls do. But we are still at a place where the idea that you can have a strong woman arguing is overloaded. She’s a bitch, a shrew, a troll if she is not totally the other side of the type: the nuturing, approving mom type all the time. This plays out everywhere from the lunch table to the workplace to the places where power and law are decided. Some places codify it, where opinionated women are considered unholy and are not allowed to have an opinion and must always defer. Funny, some blogs codify it in a way and never allow any difference. They dash out to tamp down any passion between posters. Can we tolerate difference? A bigger thing is, can a woman tolerate being different herself? That risk of stepping out and being the first to say and taking a lot of criticism before what she thinks is within her clique’s “norm” and okay spectrum.
There is a difference between saying, “I hate to talk to assholes” and “I hate to abuse or be an abuser” and saying “arguing aways makes me sick.” The sick part is a red flag to me. I’m imagining the sick part could be everything from a sort of stage fright to the disturbing idea that, by having an opinon and arguing it, you by definition become an abuser. Yes, it is a powerful thing to have an opinion. It could be that you show people they were wrong in facts or weak in their logic. That does not by definition make you an abuser.
It doesn’t even necessarily make you an abuser if you hurt their feelings or made them angry. That’s pretty wild for some sensitive caring people to understand, but truly, you aren’t by definition an abuser if everyone is not okay with what you said. Perhaps they can’t listen. Perhaps it is a requirement of their feelings that they are always right or always being agreed with.
Sometimes, it is absolutely critical for us all if you speak out and be critical. Sometimes this is labelled as “uncool,” even, sometimes to state your mind and challenge authority. Why didn’t people challenge Bush after 9/11? Well it was uncool. Unpatriotic. Disrespectful. Everyone can look back on their lives and see times where it was uncool to say something, and that is why stupidity was not challenged.
Sometimes the Emperor has no clothes and that mob think needs to be challenged. It may not have an immediate effect of people saying to you “gee you’re right, oh, thank you.” Or ever. But the courage thing needs to be encouraged. Bullying and stupidity becomes the norm in the family, the workplace, or in politics when people don’t resist. It tends to snowball when totally unopposed. Sure, it’s a game plan to keep the peace by being silent or totally agreeable, and it is useless to engage with a asshole to change his or her mind, but there is something necessary in your participation in creating what the norm is in your society, small and large.
On a smaller side, I have to say I have never been prouder than to overhear my niece say to her rabid fan friends, “The Twilight movie really sucks” and went on to defend that point of view. The little group argued quite a bit…and passionately. Wow you don’t have to agree with that opinion, but I thought…how important that she be able to challenge the norm of belief in her little circle. It’s risky without a doubt. Conflict is risky. Those friends of hers that must always be with people who totally agree with them may drop her. “Who do she think she is for not liking Twilight? Does she think she’s better than us?” Funny to look at kids, but adults do the same thing over other debates. They may take it personal that she doesn’t believe in the wonderfulness of the Twilight hero and his chaste ideal girlfriend exactly as they do, considering it an insult. They may talk behind her back in a passive aggressive move, etc, etc… Even a small thing like this has power implications. I hope that she can grow up to be okay with her opinion causing some conflict without it destroying her.
bettypage,
I’m a little unsure who the “you” you are addressing is. At first, I thought it was a general you, but later it seems to be very targeted toward Mandolin. I’m sure you know that Mandolin has no problem sticking up for herself or her ideas or disagreeing with people or contributing. I’m hoping this wasn’t your intent, but your last comment comes off as if you think she has an obligation as a feminist and to feminism to waste her time in discussions she finds fruitless and unpleasant, just to prove she can hack it with the big boys. Like I said, I hope that wasn’t your intent. If it was, then I really disagree. It’s pretty clear from the post that she’s not talking about hiding in the corner and never rocking the boat. She’s talking about a particular kind of interaction that she doesn’t enjoy. She’s not obligated as a feminist to engage in it anyway, any more than I’m obligated as a feminist to eat liver and onions.
Oh, good lord, betty. You are reading about a billion things into the post that are not there. I never said I never argued with anyone, or that I never confronted people on bullshit, or that I never for fuck’s sake stick up for my ideas.
& why on earth should the only way to do any of that be through debate? Which it ain’t like I never participate in, even if I prefer not to (see also: this comment).
You’re bringing your own issues in here and putting them on me. It’s a yawn.
But here, let’s change the frame to collaboration. I agree there is too much pressure on women to be good girls, and that therefore many women shy away from any kind of conflict, even when conflicts are necessary. & that sucks. It doesn’t have to do with my post in the way that you’re implying it does, but it still sucks.
However, I’d say your posts exemplify some of what I dislike about debate. You’ve entered this space without really appearing to make an attempt to understand what I have to say, or why I’m saying it, which leads the two of us to be arguing on unequal footing, and to be chasing semantic ghosts created by the form of our argument. You’ve set yourself in conflict with me so that this is about opposition, and that oppositional stance ends up taking precedence over the actual subject (and necessitates your foisting upon me a stereotype which doesn’t fit me well, but suits your argument).
OK, let’s be totally explicit. When I say I don’t like to debate, I am NOT saying:
1) I never debate.
2) No one should ever debate.
3) Because the particular conversational form of debate is often, to me, obnoxious, therefore all possible modes of disagreement are obnoxious.
4) That the idea of a rude woman gives me the vapors.
I mean, really, this should be obvious, but there you go.
And Myca, I totally want to exchange codes with you, but I have to get my own copy of the game first. *hangs head*
Mandolin: It ain’t all about you. If I meant you, I’m certainly not too shy to mention your name. Debating is different than being defensive.
You wrote:
“. You are reading about a billion things into the post that are not there. I never said I never argued with anyone, or that I never confronted people on bullshit, or that I never for fuck’s sake stick up for my ideas.”
Um….when did I write that you, Mandolin, never argue with anyone? Or the whole paragraphs of stuff you think I meant…all about you?
I agree…you don’t debate. You take the moral high chair saying debate is beneath you as you complain that everything that is disagreement that “debate is bad” is all about you and by golly…you are INSULTED, making others totally responsible for your feelings. Which is not debate and wholly unpleasant. And rude yourself.
Geeze. It ain’t all about you.
I don’t like “debate”–it’s not that I don’t like disagreement, or writing about ideas, or thinking things through, but I’ve noticed that debate really privileges people who think very quickly, are very verbal, have a lot of self-confidence, have the language being spoken as a first language, have a college education, and probably a few other things. I have all those most of the time and I’ve often been appalled in retrospect to see that I was wrong but I “won” because I was glibber than the other person. Also, because I’m fairly quick and tend to “win”/convince, it’s easy for me to miss the nuances of someone else’s position. (And very few things that help “win” a debate really mean you’re more likely to be right.)
One of the reasons I like blog posts (and even, to a degree, a bit of an echo-chamber effect) is that I get to hear all the nuances of a position, everyone’s take on it, everyone’s background, without having to get into any kind of judgment or debate. I’m much more interested in (even though I’m bad at) forms that tease out people’s positions in detail than I am in competitive rhetoric.
And I dislike debate because there’s so little time and space to examine the invisible stuff–social position, relationships, what people have to prove. My particular wing of the left tends to drift into macho left behavior–cruelty, “telling it like it is” as a form of aggression, “please don’t tell me about your problems/illness/feelings”.
I have acquired many of my own personal positions through having been convinced by debate. I have a mentality which makes is very difficult to accept a statement as true unless I get to dig into it a bit, but it is not infrequent that I change my mind as a result of debate.
I think that the ability to change your mind based on new information is pretty much the goal of having a brain, and I therefore get frustrated by people who expect me to accept their positions without debate, or by people who hold that there are certain positions that they are unwilling to debate.
But that doesn’t mean that I don’t like talking to them. Some of my best friends hate debating. It’s just an issue of how they exit the conversation. Someone who doesn’t want to debate AND who doesn’t expect me to accept their views is really no problem; we can agree to disagree.
OTOH, someone who simultaneously refuses to debate, and who insists on getting the last word, is a pain in the ass.
And incidentally, bettypage, I can personally attest that mandolin is happy to debate when she feels like it ;)
What I do in discussing a matter with someone who disagree with me, when I’m online or in an environment specifically geared to discussion (e.g. a Federalist Society meeting), usually is debate. And I’ve found it really helpful; even if I don’t change my position on the specific matter we’ve debated, becoming aware of their perspective and what informs it will influence my understanding of the world.
For example, discussing fat acceptance on this blog hasn’t really changed my mind about the specific topics of, say, whether obesity (as medically defined) impacts health. But learning more about the severity of social stigmas has made me more willing to challenge other people’s casual willingness to impose those stigmas. One of my classmates was remarking on Facebook that airlines could just weigh people at check-in to determine whether they should pay more, and I made an effort to explain to him why that was a horrible, horrible idea. (As he responded by saying “I had to get weighed in to wrestle,” I probably didn’t get far…) Before talking to people about fat acceptance, I would have just wrinkled my nose and ignored what he was saying as vaguely stupid but not a big deal. I wouldn’t have recognized how his idea wasn’t “not a good idea” but an activelyawful one.
However, when I’m talking to someone I know very well, I’m often less interested in debating than in gauging that person’s ideas and opinions. It’s important to me to know what the people close to me think. But sometimes they find it frustrating because they think I’m debating poorly when I’m not meaning to debate at all; they’ll get annoyed by my asking something that in a debate would be tangential, but is very much on point for my purpose of understanding how far someone goes with a particular belief (e.g., “what’s the total set of circumstances in which you’d find it morally acceptable to have an abortion?”)
Pingback: links for 2009-04-20 « Embololalia
Okay. And I think we’ve talked about that before.
But it would be nice if you would acknowledge here that people can learn & change their minds or change other people’s minds without debating at all, per se. Likewise when PG says:
Debate is not strictly necessary here either.
Other options (and ones I prefer) include much, much reading or other exposure to people’s ideas, which can give you a full understanding of why they think and how they think it.
The idea that they’ve never come up against the questions you’d pose in debate is usually false. They usually engage with those ideas in their writing (sometimes by sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting “lalalalala,” but still). If I do have questions that don’t seem to be answered, then sometimes — particularly in person — I’ll just ask bunches of questions and not respond particularly to the answers. This can be very frustrating online (depending on context), but works pretty well in person — if what you really want to know is what the other person thinks, and why.
(It would be really cool to do that with, say, Dick Cheney. His morals are opposite from mine, but he’s very intelligent, informed, and competent. I expect I would learn a lot from just asking him questions and listening to his answers.)
Further, if you dislike debates, you can read *other* people debating the positions, which also gives you information.
So, I respect your respective needs to use debate to garner information, and to change your minds, but I object to the idea that debate is the only — or even the best — tool for people to do these things.
Sure, consider it acknowledged. That’s just me, and that is how/why I debate. Other people surely acquire a lot of new information in a lot of different ways; they’re not me.
That said, I don’t really agree that the “read what i have written” thing is a substitute for debate. It may be just as good, but it’s quite different.
take this post, for example. Perhaps if I had read everything you had written, I would have been able to assess your feelings on this issue. But by stating it succinctly in a single post, you focused attention on your point and as a result it is possible to discuss it in a detailed and efficient fashion. That’s what debates do.
The “acquire knowledge” method is certainly valuable. It has many pros as well as cons, and would probably be a part of every serious debate about larger issues. Arguably all serious debates would probably benefit from supplementary research, just as much serious research would benefit from supplementary debate. But acquiring knowledge on your own is so different from the type of debate I was discussing, that it is not really comparable.
Another issue is whether the debate should be one sided. Many people who claim they don’t like debate are happy to assail their opponents’ positions, but simply don’t want to put their own position out there for scrutiny. Surely you have met people who feel that they should be entitled to ask questions of folks, but who do not want to answer questions themselves. (I do not consider you to be in this category, BTW) That’s bad form, at least to me.
Are you implying that this is why people debate? Debate isn’t really designed to find out what/why the other person thinks, IMO (though one often does find that out.)
I think of a debate as a method more to find out what I should think (my views? your views? a mix of both?) and why. Or, sometimes, to convince someone–though this is usually the same thing.
IOW, debate is rather impersonal, which is what makes it quite different from normal conversation. Is the issue here perhaps that you are approaching debate with goals which are different than the goals of those you are debating? If you are expecting your debate partners to harbor an interest in you and not your position, then I can see that you would not enjoy it much.
You made a leap here, as far as I can tell.
Wanting to know:
is not the same as:
I’m not interested in what other people think as special, magical bonding time. I’m interested because a comprehensive understanding of the other person’s position will inform me, and determine — as you say — what I should think.
One reads Nietzche not because one wants to comprehend the essence of Nietzche but because one wants to understand his ideas. One then puts his ideas into a context in one’s own life, and decides what to accept and what to discard. One gains the tools of his thought, insomuch as being able to guess what a Nietzchian perspective is on any particular event, which I also find very valuable. (I probably should use a different philosopher here, rather than Nietzsche, who I’ve only read analysis of, not any primary text by, but oh well.) One can make these determinations without bothering Nietzche — who is dead — by making him reconcile points you disagree with him on; that’s what one’s own reflectioni s for. Or, at least, what mine is for.
(I’ve noticed this shows up in how I comment on threads, and particularly on inter-blog debates. I very rarely pitch in at the beginning of a long argument. I tend to pitch in toward the end, after reading as much material from both sides as I’ve been able to, and then being able to form some kind of idea. I generally won’t bother to share that idea if I think it’s reasonably identical to the ideas held by one faction or another. But I will try to share my idea if I think it does something interesting, like attempt to construct an overarching theory that will account for apparent contradictions which I don’t think must necessarily be perceived as contradictions.)
For similar reasons, I have no interest in discussing abortion with most pro-lifers because I’ve heard their arguments before. There is nothing new I’m going to learn about their position or their frame for analyzing life because I’ve heard all their arguments ad infinitum. There’s nothing they’re going to say which is going to give me more information or change my position or give me a new way of understanding the world, which is my primary interest in political conversation.
More of a guess, though I clarified it as such. I’ve met plenty of folks for who “what the other person thinks, and why” would be pretty much the same as “harboring an interest in [the other person.]” I thought you might be one of them.
In any case, much as I would love to continue debating you on this ;) I’m not sure we really disagree. Some people like to debate and prefer to acquire information that way (like me.) Some people don’t, and prefer to acquire information in other ways (you, my wife, and some other billions of people.)
I mention my wife only as a way to illustrate that the difference in information style is certainly no barrier to those various groups getting along. It’s more of an issue of whether or not the interaction is handled politely, from both sides.
Yes, I think we’re probably on the same page. ;)
There’s a lot of gender to this – or at least, social gender roles.
When I was a senior in high school I was in the advanced 4th year English class. The class had 20 girls in it and 4 boys (and there’s a stereotype right there). Often there would be debate on a topic. Often that debate worked out to the 20 girls on one side and the 4 of us boys on the other. The girls almost never “won”. They just completely sucked at being aggressive in argument and discussion and the use of logic.
I’m not saying they couldn’t think logically – I’m talking about presenting logic constructions and concepts in discussion. And it wasn’t a lack of intelligence; these were probably the smartest 20 girls in the school. But they didn’t push their points and do a good job of probing for weakness. There were only one or two of them that were any good at it at all, and they were noted, for want of a better phrase, as not being “feminine”. I’m not trying to imply that they were butch or anything like that; in fact, one of them was dating the football team’s star fullback.
This was in 1969-70, and even then it was pretty obvious to me that there was some kind of gender role linkage to this.
I don’t think I would even do what RonF does here.
I do it because every so often I learn something. I think it’s dangerous to live in an echo chamber. And I think that it’s foolish and self-deceptive to simply read what people on the right say about what people on the left say instead of talking to people on the left directly. I no more trust the characterizations on Free Republic of what people on the left say than I would trust characterizations on Move-On.org of what people on the right say.
I just want to second what Silver Bella said at #25.
I love debates. I was a high school debator, I’m really verbal and I know a lot of random shit and I like to play for points. I’ve judged high school debates and I have spent a lot of years on some rough-and-tumble internet boards.
But I’ve learned a real distaste for it when it affects anything important to me (and then, by extension, to other people.) I want to have a conversation, not play to win – and if I can learn something, that’s a bonus. When people pull actual information, not just rebuttals, out of their experience or knowledge base, or know how to research it, that’s awesome. But the world is a big place and, it’s often possible for *all* sides of an issues to have reason and evidence on their side, or for the sides of the debate to completely miss another way that’s a better answer than all of them.
So I restrain myself, usually. Despite my love of scoring points in conversation.
I’ve been told I’m good at debating, but I’m not sure that’s a compliment. Debate is basically a game. It’s a competitive sport.
Many political issues, when kicked about in debate, do tend to trivialize the human value of the people most directly involved in these issues. A lot of the debating that goes on concerning gay marriage, for example, treats me as if I’m about as human as the wood on a basketball court or a leather ball.
At issue, in such a debate, is whether, as a lesbian, I am human enough to deserve the same basic rights as everybody else. That’s a topic that merits serious and respectful discussion. When I, a white person, discuss issues of great concern to the lives of people of color, I have a moral obligation to discuss them seriously and respectfully — not to treat their lives as nothing more than the arena for a game.
As long as mutual respect can be maintained, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a good debate. But I agree with those here who say that collaborative discussion is a better means of honoring the humanity of those with the most invested in the outcome of an issue.
I have the same feeling about debating.. This morning I had a rather uncomfortable ‘conversation’ about domestic abuse, and intimate partner tape. Having been through both, but ashamed of it (for all the obvious reasons: Was I weak not to leave? Why didn’t I say no?), I tried explaining some of the reasons why wowen may stay without getting into to detail about my personal life or experiences. However, the lame jokes kept coming; and the old question of why it would be difficult to leave, too –
I even thought of confronting everyone present with my experience. A short briefing; something to throw in their faces: this is what women who are abused look like: funny at times, determined, and hard headed. Now repeat what you just said about women too weak to leave; having ‘daddy issues’; flawed somewhere deep inside, always essentially looking to be abused..
Of course, I didn’t do this. I am not going to convince people that way; I am going to get, if lucky, the benefit of the doubt. And: personal experience doesn’t really ‘count’ in a universe of truth constructed around objectivity and rationality.
So I gave up (and spent the rest of the day writing in my diary and crying, here and there). The fact that I must have made the impression of being quite passionate (emotional? radical?) about this issue also did not sit well with me – what an hysteric, I am.
So yeah, I agree with you, albeit probably from a different angle. As other posters have noted, there is little respect for women who voice their opinions; and the foundation of many of mine is highly personal. Conversation like these do not only make me feel hurt, sad – they also force me to take a stand and ‘scare people off’ by being too emotional, too hysterical, too much. Because my body speaks as well.
Bottom line: avoidance feels safer, at least for now.
(and, sometimes I just get plain bored explaining the basic of my positions: that sexism does exist; that it generally favors those born in male bodies; that this hurts women as well as men.. etc. Don’t have the energy)
I am terribly sorry for the typos. Won’t happen again.
Ferawle,
What a rotten day — I hope it’s gotten better. I have to say, based on my own incidents of incorporating a hurtful experience from my life into a discussion to help persuade someone, that it’s usually not a good idea unless you know that person to be sensitive and respectful. Otherwise you’ve put yourself out there, made yourself vulnerable, and end up feeling even more awful because your perception of what occurred, or even your factual statement of it, gets picked apart and challenged and you feel like you’re being called a liar after you just shared one of the big truths of your life.
I think sharing personal experiences is useful for enlarging people’s understanding; how are people going to know what a DV survivor went through unless s/he can talk about it? But enlarging people’s understanding is a gift that you’re not obligated to give, especially to the kind of folks for whom this is strewing pearls before swine.
Pretty much the only thing I can suggest in such situations is to say, “I don’t think you know what it’s like, and maybe you should read or listen to what people who have been through it say, instead of just blankly saying, ‘Duuuh, I dunno why anyone would do/feel this…'” Don’t offer yourself up as their teacher, but send them links or suggestions of memoirs, lectures, etc. If they disregard, then you know for sure that they have no genuine interest in learning anything, and you can leave them to paddle contentedly in their mental wading pool (and I’d advise staying clear of them in general to the extent that you can).
Ferawle,
That’s a lot of why I don’t like to debate.
I take a lot of these issues to heart. When people say rape victims asked for it, they’re talking about my best friend and my mother, and so many other women I know. When people say poor people don’t work, they’re talking about my husband’s mother; when they say we shouldn’t provide health care to poor kids, they’re talking about my husband’s inability to get consistent health care or dental help throughout his child. When they want to deny gay marriage, they’re talking about depriving people I love.
And there are issues that are more personal, too.
Fuck that.
Thanks for the feedback, the both of you – and GP:
These people are generally nice people; also, without saying too much about my specific situation, I am in a position where these contacts mattter a great deal to me as I am far away from home and far away from my friends. Which makes it all the more difficult to deal with the preconceptions (or plain naivite) I now know some of them have.
Your post did raise an important question for me: why is it that the experiences of oppression are 1. often considered shameful and inapppropriate material for discussion or ‘debate’, for that matter, and 2. why these experiences, like I said, are so often analytically ‘picked apart’ (your words). These informal rules of polite and fruitful debate or discussion seem to work against a body of knowledge outside a dominant framework of knowledge (often ‘common sense’, or statistics, or plain ideology). As such they seem highly racialized; classist; sexist, and a very effective way of making it incredibly hard to speak for some, and less so for others. (and I have no allusions as to the position of my own voice here: it is, within this system, still relatively powerful)
Maybe I am derailing here – but now we’ve been talking about this, do you think there are useful and interesting books or aticles on this topic? On who gets to speak; about what; and why certain experiences are off-limits? I myself am reminded of Irigaray, Cixous, Trinh Minh Ha.. Any other suggestions?
Pingback: Being Amber Rhea » Blog Archive » links for 2009-04-23
I think that if one’s experiences are used as a kind of data point for the argument one advances, then people who aren’t sensitive to the difference between a magazine article and hello this is my life will consider that data point to be as subject to criticism as any other. For example, if I’m discussing whether politicians have tended to betray their promises about equality for homosexuals, and the person on the other side claims that Clinton in the 1992 campaign had promised to keep the existing military policy of barring gays, and then changed it once he got into office to the more-gay-friendly Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, I’m sure as hell not going to let this completely falsehood, the exact opposite of what happened, go. I’m going to challenge it and pick it to bits and then mock the person who asserted it for making such a ridiculous, clearly-based-on-right-wing-paranoia-distorting-one’s-memories assertion.
On the other hand, if someone is arguing against allowing homosexuals to serve based on his having had a real experience of feeling uncomfortable being in close quarters with someone whom he reasonably believed found him sexually attractive, then I’m not going to be so relentlessly mocking because I don’t want to devalue a genuine experience that this person probably felt a bit shy about sharing. I might probe somewhat into how this person deals with similar experiences when they happen with persons of the opposite sex, and also whether the discomfort ought to be enough to drive military policy, but I’m not going to say “Oh please, you probably were imagining that he was interested in you, how vain.”