I need to come out of my shell
Seriously! I’ve been told so, and by repressed Englishmen, so it must be true!
Anyway.
Last night, I was laughing with Antoine and Brian about something very odd I’ve noticed since I’ve been back in America, specifically with a few white American men: If I hold a different view than they do on something, it really pisses them off! They express this by lecturing me on the dangers of “thinking [I’m] so right” and “not being willing to admit that [they] might be right”.
Three things:
1) Yes, I am reasonably confident that the views I hold are right. Isn’t that, well, why I hold them?
2) If I believe what I believe more strongly than you believe what you believe, your discomfort with that is your problem and not mine.
3) If you want me to consider that you may be right, the onus is on you to present evidence or arguments in support of what you say. If you don’t, why on earth would I be moved to yield to you? This is sort of what debate and conversation is about, isn’t it? Seems pretty basic to me.
While I find this all quite funny, I am also somewhat perplexed about why these people react this way. Is it a coincidence that they are men? Is it a coincidence that they are American? Is it a white man thing? Is it a coincidence that, be they ultra-conservatives or left-wing (they are never actual liberals), they are very indoctrinated with groupthink?
Brian said that if the topic at hand is something like free markets, it is very likely that they have never met a person who is very hardcore in support of capitalism. (Let’s face it: A lot of people in the western world have never known another way of life, and so imagine that this is some lesser system they have had imposed on them and must plod along with, like it or not.)
They have never had to present evidence to back up their notion that capitalism has not lifted as many people out of poverty as it has (and is, thanks to globalization and increasingly liberalized markets).
They have never had to form cogent arguments about why single working mothers should be forced by law to finance their leisure activities.
No one has ever held them accountable for gaming the taxpayer (via Medicaid) for subsidized healthcare while they’re driving around in nice cars, dropping mad bank on designer clothes, and hitting Starbucks five times a week.
Being asked to do so is disturbing to them. Brian says this is a good thing, and may just force them to examine seriously their views and why they hold them. (I need to be more ready to go into exactly why I believe what I do, what life experiences have shaped my ideas, etc. I normally don’t want to bore people with this, but Antoine and Brian think it is important to lay this out eagerly and explicitly.)
Antoine and Brian also nailed my aversion to telling people exactly how vile and dangerous I find their ideas. Mostly I think these are well-intentioned people who have been drinking the wrong Kool-Aid all these years. They truly believe that they are standing up for virtue and a better way of life. If they’ve never had to examine their beliefs, it seems a bit mean to expect them to know any better. Yes, I have low expectations of these men. So I don’t want to make them feel bad by telling them how wrong I really think they are, in a practical as well as theoretical sense.
Bottom line: I have no problem with these people trying to bring about that better way of life as they envision it. But if the answer to “What happens to the woman who disagrees with you and wants to opt out of participating in your project?” is, “Well, she gets thrown in jail,” you’ve got a long way to go before I can take seriously the idea that you may be right.
Filed under: Life
Jackie, it’s certainly not your problem(duty) to educate every clown you run into. But when they try to put the hat on you, it might be a good idea to try to hold up a mirror for them. It’s a challenge. I’ve met these types before.
The real problem is they might get put in charge of something before someone sets them right.
When I was a teenager, I remember buying into the stereotype that men didn’t like “smart girls.” Then I hit college, and noticed something interesting: Female students who excelled academically in the sciences usually DID have dates and boyfriends and such. Females who excelled in the humanities (political science, history, etc.) did not.
There was no difference in “smarts” - both populations had equally high GPAs, honor society memberships and such. But there WAS a difference in where those high GPAs came from.
Women in the sciences got their grades from papers (quietly researched and written), tests (quietly scratched out on Scantron sheets and blue books), and experiments (quietly conducted under a microscope).
Women in the humanities also had tests and papers counting toward their GPA. But in my small college, they had something else: class participation. And it counted for a LOT - upwards of 40-50% of your grade for the semester. So to get that A or B+ you couldn’t just be smart - you had to SPEAK UP for yourself. You had to ASSERT your point of view - in the meaning of Beowulf’s imagery, the origin of WWII or what our post-Cold War defense policy should be.
Voila. Great grades, no dates.
Since then, I have taken special note of how men react to a women’s assertiveness. And Hillary Clinton has been a great 15-year sociological experiment in this. (As a matter of fact, Hillary is a great example of your #1 point above - it’s not that she believes X or Y, but her *confidence* in her beliefs, that ticks men off). I know the last person you’d want to be compared to is Hillary, but …. it’s the same thing. Your assertiveness is what’s ticking them off, not the opinion itself. This is particularly true of American men. I notice that British and Scottish men will admiringly call me “feisty” but I never get such a compliment from a Yank.
Shotrock, I discussed this tonight with a friend of mine who is half-Yank, half-Brit, and who went to a very good American university. He said he’d developed very definite views on this matter during his time there, and they are sort of commensurate with yours.
Specifically, he said that women in the sciences were hot because they actually knew what they were talking about. If you’re, for example, arguing a point on mathematics, you cite theorems and postulates and there really is one beautiful, right answer. This is a very attractive ability. The vast majority of women in the humanities at most American universities, however, simply cannot present rational arguments which support their opinions (whereas science is far less about opinion and about what you can prove on paper). This is, for the most part, because their opinions are not based on rationality. There is nothing attractive about this.
What I’d add to the views above is the fact that many women in the humanities seem to argue from a position of emotion rather than fact, and I don’t think this sort of weakness is the kind guys go for. (A friend of mine once said to me, “It’s not fair that you’ve got the facts on your side, because there’s more to it than that.” I was stunned, but sort of admired the honesty of ‘fessing up to NOT having the facts on one’s side.)
I’d partially agree. In the sciences, there is very little debate once the “what” and “how” have been proven. Water is two molecules of hydrogen and one of water. Pi is 3.14xxx. If a woman discovers radium… it exists. You can’t tell Marie Curie she DOESN’T know “exactly what she’s talking about.” Facts are facts.
In the humanities, the “what” and the “how” are usually given. The action happens over the “why” - which is usually NOT one, beautiful answer and is therefore driven by opinion and debate. And so it makes it easier for men to dismiss a woman’s argument, since she cannot defend herself with a stone-cold proof.
I think many women *can* support their opinion with rational arguments. I generally find, however, that a women’s opinion is tossed off as emotional instead of rational by men who disagree with it (or the opposite happens: some silly woman’s “feelings” about an issue are touted as utterly logical/rational by the men who DO agree with it).
It may also be a difference in the sort of person the humanities and the sciences attract: the latter wants to prove X is correct, the former wants to prove HE (or she) is correct. :o)
I’ll have to disagree as well on the idea that dealing with a man from a position of emotional weakness makes women less attractive; I think for the average American male, the exact opposite is true. And by that I mean for the purposes of a mate. I know a lot of men who say they think smart, assertive, rationally-arguing women are great. And they DO think they’re great - when it comes to co-workers or friends … or the Cincinannati Salon :o). When it comes to a mate, however … I’d prefer the over/under on a guy choosing a chick of high emotional weakness, if I were a gambler.
Again, to reiterate - I think this is a **cultural** gender issue rather than a universal one. The American male, he is an interesing creature. :o)