More about speaking uncivilly! and 'self-policing'

just saw this under an article about why there aren't more women in public office

"[commenter 1]
Here's the thing. Women are inherently emotional creatures. Men tend to look at things from the logical stand point, less often being caught up in the emotional charge of a situation. No ones stopping women from being politicians...

[commenter 2 in reply]
here's the thing. shut the fuck up."

Which made me laugh out loud. 

This is what I mean - sometimes speaking uncivilly is the exact right response. 

The first comment is apparently civil, but it's actually patronising and sexist, and reinforces the weight of hundreds of years of patriarchy and misogyny. The second is 'uncivil' but it's spot on. 

(Comes from https://other98.com/cant-unsee-looks-like-photoshop-men-politics/ - which was a widely circulated meme about Photoshopping the men out of photos of political and boardroom meetings. Worth revisiting or checking out if you didn't see it.)

Worth noting that the first comment got 20 likes, the second 358, so obviously a lot of other people liked it too. 

But my issue is, even though I think the response is spot on, I wouldn't normally say something like that. Because I'm an academic who teaches students, because I'm identifiable, I would try to find a 'civil' way to respond, even though I think the way commenter 2 responded is actually the best and most straightforward way to respond. 

So it's like my identity as an academic, in a hierarchical organisation where I could be sanctioned, is controlling my private identity. One obvious way of getting round this is anonymity, but why? Why we should we have to conceal our identity to say what we think, because of corporate power?

On a related though slightly different note, in the current political debate over the Batman by-election, I know some academics (including myself) who support the Greens, because we think they have better policies. But most of us I think would be hesitant to come out as academics and argue that people should vote Green. We might say 'Why I'm voting Green' or do a comparison of parties' policies, but not openly advocate for one party. Yet we may have spent years studying the issues.

Oh well - maybe I should do a 'why I think people should vote greens in Batman' piece. But back to fixing up my thesis now.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

when I'm trying to say what I think but you think I'm insulting you ...

Over the years I've definitely upset quite a few people by saying what I think - sometimes by carefully considered comments that still upset people, and sometimes by just unguardedly saying what I think. Reflecting on the pattern in this, they are comments where I was suggesting (or people thought I was suggesting) that they (or someone else) was being sexist, or racist, or not environmentally sustainable. I'd say this pretty well covers the gamut of why I have been banned from Hoyden about Town and Crooked Timber and the extensive arguments that preceded those bans. In the case of Hoyden About Town, it was a while ago and I don't still have the reasons that the blog owner, Tigtog, gave for banning me, but as I remember it was that I upset people. This was following many heated discussions over sexism on the former Larvatus Prodeo blog (where Tigtog was a moderator) and a comment I'd made to another commenter on Hoyden about Town, which possibly suggested that she ...
Read more

Why I am breaching my confidentiality clause

This is about my confidentiality clause and why I've decided to breach it.* Long story but I made an equal opportunity complaint against the then Labor Premier and Deputy Premier, and the Premier's chief of staff, in 1999. I was dismissed from my job as researcher/adviser in early 1999 and I lodged the complaint later that year, after the Victorian election in which Labor formed government. The case was eventually settled before hearing about two years later. I agreed to a confidentiality clause, although I didn't want to. I've decided to breach it because of the #MeToo movement. Confidentiality clauses are an important reason why sexual harassment and similar issues have been hushed up for so long. I've often pushed the boundaries with mine, but until now I haven't formally and publicly breached it. The fact that I'm nearly at retirement and fairly financially secure also makes it easier to do so now. Theoretically I could be sued. I don't think I ...
Read more

On honesty, rudeness, being offended

A few bits and pieces I was browsing through blogs and I came across this by Timothy Burke, talking about why he blogs and why he has been quiet recently. He seems to touch on some of the same issues I'm trying to explore here. He's a long time blogger, aware of " problems of long-standing in online culture: trolling, harassment, mobbing, deception, anonymity, and so on."  But he goes on to say: Nevertheless, I started a blog for two major reasons. First, to have an outlet for my own thinking, as a kind of public diary that would let me express my thinking about professional life, politics, popular culture and other issues as I saw fit, and perhaps in so doing keep myself from talking too much among friends and colleagues. I don’t think I’ve succeeded in that, because I still overwhelm conversations around me if I’m not thoughtful about restraining myself.  The second was to see if I could participate usefully in what I hoped would grow into a new and mor...
Read more