Excuse Me, But Your Pants Appear To Be On Fire

jfpbookworm

What do you do when someone makes a claim of personal experience that just isn’t believable? Specifically, do you accuse them of fabricating the claim?

I’m sure many of you have heard by now about the anti-choice blogger who mistook an Onion article for a serious editorial. In a response to that article, he made the claim that the reason he thought the article was genuine was because he would “meet people like her in the field all the time.” Most readers of feminist discussion forums have encountered other experiences of dubious veracity, such as the tale of the poor man harangued for opening a door, or the malicious women’s studies professor who lowers the grades of her male students.

With most of these stories, I suspect they never happened, and are just invented to support the author’s point, but of course due to their nature I can never prove this. The best I can do is look for supporting evidence – an earlier mention of the experience, for example, or similar experiences reported by other (perhaps not so biased) people.

The options I can see for dealing with someone who makes an unbelievable claim to support their point:

  1. Give them the benefit of the doubt and treat the claim as true.
  2. Acknowledge your doubt, but treat the claim as conditionally true.
  3. Express your doubts to the truth of the claim, suggesting that the story may be misremembered or incomplete.
  4. Accuse the commenter of making up the story to support their point.

The consensus usually seems to be to give the claimant the benefit of the doubt, at least in the immediate discussion. The basic idea is one of creating richer discussions: with respect to verifiable data, requiring everybody to constantly cite their sources for everything they say bogs down the discussion (and indeed, is a common tactic for derailing a discussion). When it comes to claims of personal experience, where often no verification is possible the rationale is one of quid pro quo: if we acknowledge others’ experiences as genuine, people will give us the same benefit when we bring up our own personal experiences. This will create a more productive discussion than one personal data it is off limits, at least when we’re talking about a subject where there is not going to be much “hard data” or where “hard data” is likely to be biased.

Accusing someone of lying throws that social contract away, and opens the door to counteraccusations of lying, or of ignoring truth in favor of ideology. But what does saying “if she really said that, she’s wrong” accomplish? The impression is that of a “no true Scotsman” fallacy – that we’re just sweeping the inconvenient feminists under the rug.

Obviously, calling someone out on a fabrication isn’t going to convince them of the rightness of your position. The usual rationale for it is to appeal to third-party readers. However, these readers are also going to be able to come to their own conclusions; if that were the sole purpose, it probably wouldn’t be worth raising the point. However, the introduction of the fake anecdote tends to do more than just appeal to the people willing to believe it; it derails the conversation as other commenters respond in order to distance themselves from it.

So, readers, what do you all do when you’re confronted with this? How has it worked out?

One thing I would not ever advocate is accusing someone making a claim of rape, assault or abuse of making it up. These sort of claims should *always* be taken seriously, because victims of these crimes have had a long history of being ignored, or called liars, and because they’re intensely personal – it does a lot more harm for a victim not to be believed about these matters.

What Quesada's Foot-In-Mouth Syndrome Says About Comics

tekanji

I don’t think Joe Quesada’s a bad person. I don’t think he hates women. But I do think that he’s digging himself a deep, deep hole on this whole women in the comic book industry thing. For those of you not “in the know,” Joe Quesada is Marvel Comics’ Editor in Chief. This most recent kerfluffle involves him putting his foot into his mouth about the lack of women in the higher ranks of the comic book industry. Ragnell has the scoop on his mediocre response to the question “why hasn’t a women creator made it into the tight circle of Marvel creators?” in her post, Does This Sound Like An Answer?. More commentary can be found here. Continue reading

"Nice Guy Post" Link Roundup

tekanji

So, my Nice Guy post is making the rounds, just like I always wanted it to. Downside is that I have to actually think about commenters who disagree and look into improving the list.

But, hey, I’m all about spreading the love, so here are discussions on the Nice Guy List (in no particular order):
Hot Links

From They’re just words

Personalised expansion from something stolen from terajjin

From Sunbeam’s Scrawls

granny’s link fest.

From random blatherings and collected snark

Newsflash: Enlightened Modern Men Can Still Be Dicks. [July 15, 2006]

Integrating Minority Spaces

tekanji

On the subject of integrating spaces, Claire of SeeLight has written an interesting article, How To Welcome Outsiders, on what to do when a privileged person enters a minority space that you’re hosting. She tackles topics like determining acceptable versus unacceptable behaviour, being proactive in maintaining a safe space, and the difference between guests and invaders.

Here’s an excerpt from her introduction:

I am not monoracial and I do not live a monoracial life. I also do not restrict my social life to people who share my sexual orientation, age, religion, etc. The circle of my life intersects many, many more or less enclosed circles—in fact, I’d venture to say that I intersect more circles than most people (not my friends, though; they’re just as culturally slutty as I am). My friends, family, colleagues, models, and other loved and respected ones come from all communities. All are welcome in my life, and all are welcome to follow me into circles I belong to that are not their own. But it is up to me to make sure that anyone I invite into my life, into any room of my life, is safe there.

Now if only I can muster up the drive and find the time to write on integrating privileged spaces because, hey, the onus shouldn’t always fall on the shoulder of minority groups.

How To Get Your Girlfriend Into Your Fandom

tekanji

It is apparently an unending problem for geeky men that their girlfriends, who may or may not be geeks, get upset when their boyfriends jilt them for their geek obsession. So I, in my infinite wisdom, and only parly inspired by this post have decided to make the definitive list on getting your girlfriend into your fandom, whatever it may be. So, boys, please pay attention!

Quit yer whining and realize that it’s okay if your SO doesn’t share all of your hobbies.

I mean, there was a reason that you decided to date her in the first place, right? Like her personality, intelligence, the ability for y’all to click on other levels? Maybe if you, I don’t know, focused on that instead of substituting your geeky hobby for actual quality time, you’d find that geeks can coexist with non-geeks on a romantic level.

So, remember, the world does not end if she doesn’t play games or read comics or whatever.

Really.

More "Girlfriend List" Idiocy

tekanji

This time from IGN.com. It’s a month old, but it’s new to me (thanks, Ragnell). I have my “for ‘her'” category, but I’m really starting to feel like I need one specifically for “The Girlfriend List Idiocy” because this is just ridiculous. People rarely tell us “What Men Want” because it’s assumed to be too diverse in the vast majority of subjects, and yet over and over again these “What Women Want” lists crop up. You, out of my geekdom!

Anyway, here’s what I sent via their contact form:

Articles like these are precisely why I avoid your site. I am an avid geek – a gamer, comics fan, and into reading and writing about said geekery. I am exactly what your magazine/site targets, except for that inconvenient aspect of being female.

Women are not some collective Hive Vagina. You can no more recommend good books for us than you can for men — and the only “Books/Games/Whatever for Your Boyfriend” lists I have seen are parodies of the overabundant stereotyical “Girlfriend Lists”.

Listen, I’m sure the list was made and posted with the best intentions. But, please, from one geek to another: please stop. I’m not some mysterious creature to be tamed with your list of books. I — and every other woman, geek or no — am an individual. A human being.

When you publish lists like that, you erase our humanity by assuming that we’re all the same.

Ragnell, the evil sadist who sent me the link in the first place, has posted her reply here. It’s pithy and to the point, and if you want to laugh instead of cry/fume, go read it.

Pirates of the Caribbean II and the Tradition of Racial Oppression

lake-desire

I was very excited to see Pirates of the Caribbean II: The Dead Man’s Chest Friday night; I loved the first film and used to work at the Magic Kingdom theme park where I frequented the Florida’s abbreviated version of the ride. Beyond watching the trailers, I’d remained spoiler free and didn’t know what to expect from Pirates. While queueing at a small town American theater, I studied the poster for the film and saw three brown-skilled men with jeering and perplexed looks on their faces in the lower left-hand corner. Uh-oh, I thought. What am I getting into?

Here ye be warned, this post contains some mild spoilers for Pirates of the Caribbean II.

Continue reading

On The Feminist Carnival, Privilege, and Objectivity

tekanji

Reading blac[k]ademic, as I am known to do, I came across this excellent post by nubian, did i hurt your feelings?, on (white) feminism and (not) respecting minority spaces. First of all, I’m telling you all to put my post on hold and go read it. Now, not later.

Have you read nubian’s post yet? Yes? Good.

So, aside from thinking that I want to include it in my How to be a Real Nice Guy post, I was struck by this line:

the really upsetting part about this, is that the posting by nio was linked in the (white) carnival of feminists

“White carnival of feminsts??” I cried. Then my mind started inventing all these reasons why Niobium’s post would have been included in the carnival. The one I settled on was that the Feminist Carnival has a duty to be objective. It should include all of the feminisms, even the ones that contradict each other.

But… is that true? Is that true objectivity, and even if it is, is objectivity really useful in a carnival by feminists, for feminists?

I. My Privilege is Showing

I will admit it to the world right now: reading nubian’s blog makes me uncomfortable. I have raged in private about how wrong I think she is on this or that topic. Why have y’all never seen it? Simply put: because I was wrong. Because I knew I was wrong, even when I was saying how right I was. So, it came as no surprise when I saw her criticize the carnival for being primarily by and for white feminists that I jumped headlong into denial mode.

Mind you, I agreed with what nubian was saying in her post. That shit is “Minority Spaces 101”. It’s not even that I have so great an investment in the Feminist Carnival that I felt it could Do No Wrong (please, I criticize everything — including things I like). I was cheering her on through every criticism she made about white feminism, white culture, etc. And then, because I wasn’t expecting it, I got smacked in the face with her “(white) carnival of feminists” jab.

Without knowing how the carnival put Niobium’s post in context, or even having read her post, I had already made up my mind. Nubian was just wrong. Women of colour had hosted the carnival before, and they often got included… Because, you know, I — as a white feminist blogger who really hasn’t given the issue much thought before now — am a better judge about token minorities, exclusionary tactics, and the racial problems with the carnival than a person of colour. Right.

II. ‘Objectivity’ as a Privileged Stance

So, once I got off of one idiot thought train, I jumped right onto another. I started waxing poetically about how the Carnival had a duty to be objective and include all forms of feminism, even the ones that were at odds with each other. I wouldn’t want to be exluded if I wrote a post on sex positive feminism, so why should Niobium be excluded because of her form of feminism?

Of course, I was buying into the same broken logic that the The “What About the Mens?” Phallusy does — assuming that “objective” means giving inequal arguments equal weight. Furthermore, if we look at the carnival page, we’ll see that the two arguments were not presented the same; Niobium’s was given more focus.

Going with the latter point first, here is how nubian’s post was introduced:

Kactus at Super Babymama writes in Space about Women of Colour, their right to their own space without, in nubian’s words, having to “appease white guilt”, and how white feminists can find this hard, despite feeling that they shouldn’t.

Her post inspired two other bloggers to talk about the issue, but yet her link is what amounts to a mere footnote to Kactus’ post. Not only that, but they have been framed to focus once more on the majority: appeasing “white guilt” and how white feminists can find this hard despite their feelings to the contrary. Isn’t this exactly the kind of marginalization that feminists of colour have been blogging about since, like, forever? Why does the struggle of white people get all the press when the real topic — the colonization of people of colour’s spaces — get no mention? Seriously, this isn’t rocket science here.

To add insult to injury, Niobium not only gets her own explanation, but also an excerpt about her post. I shouldn’t have to tell you that having a quote draws more attention, and gives more weight, than not having a quote. First of all, the person reading the carnival has a sample of the linked person’s writing right there. If they like it, chances are they’ll like the post, so they’re more inclined to click on it than they would just a paraphrased link. Secondly, quotes draw the eye because they are different than the rest of the text, separated from the endless summary/link dynamic. And, lastly, having a quote devotes more space to the argument, thus making the implicit connection that it’s more important.

As for the relative equality of the subject matter of the two posts… I really didn’t want to get into Niobium’s post because I know this is going to start a shitstorm, but I think I have to. Having read it, it starts off with the “can’t we all just get along” type argument, but then devolves into the “reverse racism” myth that stems from the privilege not to understand the difference between a minority space and an exclusionary space. The thing is, what Niobium’s post is challenging is the very ability for minority spaces to exist — and I believe that that is a fundamental concept to any oppression work, including feminism.

IV. Conclusion

Nubian’s original post on the issue was a perfect example of the way majority groups colonize minority spaces. She talks about well meaning white people derailing the conversation, minimizing the experience (and even the humanity) of people of colour, and basically hindering the important conversations about race relations today and in the past.

People, this is huge. No, it’s not novel. No, it’s not new. But this dynamic is fundamental to understanding privilege, and understanding privilege is fundamental to fighting oppression. In America, overt oppression has taken a back seat to a more subtle network of cultural traditions, ways of thinking, and allowed ignorance that those who do anti-oppression work have come to call privilege. This privilege exists in all of us, no matter how hard we fight against what it stands for. To deny this — as Niobium was doing with her “reverse racism” take on minority spaces — is to discredit the very foundations of what we, as feminists, stand for.

And that is why I don’t buy my original line of argument about “objectivity”. It is no more objective, in my mind, to give equal airtime to the rape of men than it is to give equal airtime to the argument that minority spaces aren’t needed. Both of these arguments ignore the fact that they don’t exist on an equal playing field — men are not raped nearly as much as women, and minority spaces exist because minorities do not get equal airtime in “default” spaces.