If you've been on the internet for a few minutes, or a few years, it's quite easy to notice that sometimes - or, actually, often - people who purportedly agree with each other can have quite unpleasant dust-ups. Why does that happen so often in political discussions?
Content warning for talk about sexual assault and graphic, frank language in this one.
 |
Source. |
I was talking to a few friends about this regarding an article, when - to everyone's surprise - one person declared that she didn't think the clothes were appropriate, actually.
There was some consternation, so I thought I'd step in and do my best to sort out the misunderstanding. In the process, it occurred to me that it's a useful lesson for fellow discoursers and debaters in general.
Why teen girls (and people) should wear whatever they want without consequences
It's rather important to question the knee-jerk impulse to say, "cover yourself" to a woman. Quite frankly, we should run our society well enough that people can walk down the street naked without someone saying they're "asking for it." Prevention and self-defense certainly help, but they're treating the symptoms, not the cause.
Because - if you will pardon the reducto ad absurdum - it's not that hard to end up naked on accident in public. And the problem is not a sexual display of any sort, but rather, of predatory behaviour.
I shall use an allegory (which does not map perfectly for human beings, but hear me out). Blaming the hare for being too plump and delicious entirely alleviates the dog's role in catching the damned thing. And the solution is not to plug every rabbit-hole, but rather, for the hound to exercise discipline and restraint.
I shall use an allegory (which does not map perfectly for human beings, but hear me out). Blaming the hare for being too plump and delicious entirely alleviates the dog's role in catching the damned thing. And the solution is not to plug every rabbit-hole, but rather, for the hound to exercise discipline and restraint.
(Note that this example is deployed in response to the prevailing imagery of Men at Large as predators, and Women at Large as prey. Even setting aside the binary casting it enforces, it's not at all accurate, but it's certainly invoked a lot. My use here is intended to be subversive of that trope, not affirming.)
But isn't she "asking for it"?
The issue is not "asking for it," but of people hearing a request from silence - as when someone is merely existing in their presence. "Asking for it" ought only to be a thing when one is, genuinely, asking for it. And I assure you, if it's power-play and dominance that people crave satisfaction in, there are rather healthier and more consensual ways to attain it. If one wishes to be distracted by lace, I can think of any number of places to do so. But if lace alone in the mere proximity of a breast is enough to "enormously distract" a teacher's assistant, they need to either masturbate more or less, and either way, it's not the teenager's problem.
But the reason to protect people wearing sexy clothes - or nothing at all, or anything - is that these so-called "safer" activities provide no actual harm-reduction, and place the responsibility on victims. When, as shown in rather a lot of circumstances, that doesn't particularly reduce instances of violence. So it not only says - as someone graphically put it - "rape the other girl," it also circumscribes freedom and actions, to no real benefit, while also effectively condoning predatory actions by making room for them. The way to reduce incidents of sexual assault is to talk about and debunk rape myths.
Actually preventing sexual assault is hard - but the responsibility keeps falling on women (and non-cis-men in general). Despite their increased risk of exploitation and assault, due to societal prejudices, trans people and people of colour experience assault at much higher rates. But people are so often much more willing to modify the behaviour of everyone except perpetrators.
Actually preventing sexual assault is hard - but the responsibility keeps falling on women (and non-cis-men in general). Despite their increased risk of exploitation and assault, due to societal prejudices, trans people and people of colour experience assault at much higher rates. But people are so often much more willing to modify the behaviour of everyone except perpetrators.
Of course, that plays into a whole mythos of men-as-predators, semi-feral creatures enslaved to their impulses; some sort of wild thing that Women have to Tame, entreat, or otherwise cajole into civilization. It benefits no one and harms everyone - but it lurks beneath the skin of this "cover yourself" rhetoric, breathing and panting and refusing to die.
So how's this relate to discourse?
Well, most of the time, stating outright that "all men are predators" is distasteful even for conservative crowds. Some morally-bankrupt mouthpieces are happy to proclaim things like that - but as Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon revealed about the Black Civil Rights movement in the States, it was far easier to make ideas palatable by presenting them softly, in avoidant language. Even though they basically effected the same changes.
Don't get the idea that I'm some sort of saint of discourse and philosophical discussion; I have that inner conservative, that knee-jerk reaction to things, just like anyone else. So to deal with those apparent contradictions between my reaction and my stated values, I try to figure out where they're coming from. And then I ask, 'wait, do I actually have to think this?"
Because that's the beauty of it - if we like, we can decide to not do something, even though we've been told it's important. And anything that makes us happier, freer, and safer, is definitely good.
However, that subtextual language of hints and implications utilized by conservatism (and politics in general) tends to foment confusion and conflict when those values are questioned. Thus, saying, "I don't like this," about any leftist or liberal idea, can result in quite a dust-up - because normally, soft implications are used to support particular ideas at large, the sort of ideas that can't politely be stated in public or private conversations.
That's why people don't have much room for disagreement on the topic, I think - only, most of us don't necessarily pick apart every bit of the clockwork to figure out how it all clicks together. Emotions move faster than thoughts, and fingers are faster than lips. An implication that suggests a major moral disconnection can be very upsetting, and reduce the sense of tranquility and safety in a group. And of course, it's much harder to organize, both offline and online, when people aren't sure they can trust each other.
I usually defuse situations by restating common values, then explaining what I, or we, are hearing from the disagreeing party - and clarifying to see if that's the meaning they intended. Using passive-voice language can be terrifically helpful, because it removes blame by reducing personalization. In a work of fiction, that's boring, but in a discussion verging on an argument, it can be friendship-saving.
However, sometimes the call comes from inside the house. How do we reconcile conflicts in our beliefs?
How to survive disagreement - with yourself
Remembering that opinions are not sacred or sacrosanct is rather important; at least in the West, it's often invoked as an argument ender - "it's just my opinion." Nobody's questioning your right to your opinion, but having an opinion doesn't mean anyone's obligated to agree with it. But it's important to question what, and why, we're defending something. Does it actually benefit us?
"I don't like it for myself" is one thing, and even "I don't like it on you" is another; both are fine, but "I think it's bad and therefore this is fair" has implications. It might not seem terribly important, but right-wing politicians rely on this sort of sentiment when they're pushing through anti-abortion and anti-birth control access bills. "Young, slutty girls" are a famous, easy target. And talking about "young, slutty girls" is substantially more acceptable than the corollary - an idea that men are rapacious, sexually-starved monsters. It's dehumanizing on both sides, and of course, it's just not true. And there are better ways.
So ultimately, "I don't like it, but I respect her choice to just exist in it" is an important distinction to make. Choice feminism is sort of tricky, because we all Live in A Society, of course. You certainly don't have to wear that combo! But we have to stick together and let anyone who wants to wear a thing, wear it unmolested - because the alternative is reinforcing that big, ugly brick wall of rape culture.
And those ideas harm our bodies, our minds, and even our spirits. I honestly believe that humans are pretty good, and over all, tend towards altruism - and something that harms each other less will only benefit all of us, especially since the thing we're giving up sucks.
What do you think? How do you reduce conflict between factions who mostly agree with each other?
***
Michelle Browne is a sci fi/fantasy writer and editor. She lives in Lethbridge, AB with her partner-in-crime and their cats. Her days revolve around freelance editing, knitting, jewelry, and learning too much. She is currently working on other people’s manuscripts, the next books in her series, and drinking as much tea as humanly possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment
As always, be excellent unto others, and don't be a dick.