The Republican Party enforces discipline very strictly, but in places where they could never win with an honest campaign they run stooges -- Schwarzenegger, Giuliani, Bloomberg, Sen. Coleman in MN. These are allowed to wander off the reservation on specific issues, as long as they come through on a few key votes (especially but not only the vote for Speaker). Their independence is fake.
Chafee, Specter, Snowe, Collins are a somewhat different story -- survivors of the old moderate Republican wing. They're a pitiful, fraudulent bunch and play by the same rules -- Jeffords couldn't stand it any longer, but these guys have no shame.
Then you have three conservative Republicans in the Senate who aren't complete zombies: Lugar, Hagel, and McCain. Their independence is overrated too, but the comparison is with the 35-45 Republican Senators who are kneejerk wingers without a brain in their head or an ounce of self-respect.
I think you may have a point, John, except you know none of those people votes for Speaker. And I suspect there's lots less independence in the House for other structural reasons.
Granted -- I condensed a bit too much. The Speaker vote is the most important single vote in either house. There are about a dozen must-win votes every year in each House, and up until last year Rove was incredibly successful with almost all of them. The relative independence recently is impressive only in comparison to the immediately preceding period (or to the Democrats).
Whence the need we seem to feel to argue the legitimacy of partisanship? On the one hand, I know this is important in places like this, on the other, I can't remember not feeling more-or-less a partisan Democrat always.
It's a big deal in NYC politics. Guiliani and Bloomberg were both elected by partisan Democrats, because they were personally liberal and the candidates running against them were painted as self-evidently incompetent (an evaluation which I disagree with). I really want to hammer home that that's nonsense -- which team you say you're on has real consequences.
Whence the need we seem to feel to argue the legitimacy of partisanship?
I think there are two reasons.
1. There are lots of Democrats and independents in California who will vote this year for Arnold Schwarzenegger because he's acting like a non-crazy Republican now. (Same goes for New York and Pataki or Bloomberg.) It's probably a good idea to point out that the non-crazy Republicans (like our local friends, naming no names) enable the crazy Republicans to set crazy policy. (At least, one thinks it's a good idea because one hopes that maybe we'll change the minds of those voters. Though in the case of Schwarzenegger I doubt it.)
2. There are some people, me and SCMT at least included, who either actively identified as conservative or had some sympathy for conservatives a decade or so ago, who changed our minds as we became aware that the crazies were running the show. One hopes that more such will have similar revelations the more we remark on the problems cited above.
I do have a theory about seemingly-thoughtful Republicans.
I think that they're something of a vestige or relic of bad experiences with union and Democratic machine corruption. Considering that Republicans surpassed the Democrats in corruption (and set a new record which may never be matched) 5 or 10 years ago, I don't think that that's a valid reason any more.
Jimmy Hoffa is not only long dead, he was bipartisan.
a vestige or relic of bad experiences with union and Democratic machine corruption
I think you really have to include people who had an allergy to various forms of what, for lack of a better phrase, I'm going to call political correctness---who thought the Democratic Party and liberalism more generally went off the rails went it lost its identification with the working class and seemed to become solicitous of every interest group that defined itself as attractively oppressed.
I know I'm expressing that badly, but I think there's something there.
There are also seemingly-thoughtful Republicans who think that the Republicans do a better job with national security, though at this point you have to emphasize the 'seemingly'.
8: Hmm. At the risk of non-comity, I have to ask about this:
lost its identification with the working class and seemed to become solicitous of every interest group that defined itself as attractively oppressed
How much of this anti-pc thing is just race-baiting propaganda?
How much of this anti-pc thing is just race-baiting propaganda?
I think a lot of it is, or was, and I'll go you one further---it's also gender-baiting and gay-baiting and.... you name it. I think there's a substantial number of people who support the Republican Party today because they chafed under sexual harrassment and other sensitivity training, and when they heard some Republican pundit telling them in effect that it was okay to affirm a complete lack of responsibility for the black poor, that it was okay to regard women and gays as weak and Mexicans as lazy and so forth, they felt tremendous relief.
I don't pretend to complete knowledge of the psychology involved here, but you certainly hear lots of people talking this way. Well, I do.
In origin, or in practice? I think the anti-pc thing was probably largely racist and sexist in origin, but it successfully got sold to a number of people who aren't unusually racist or sexist themselves. I spent yesterday listening to my annoying downstairs neighbor be pissy about another neighbor for raising the issue at a community meeting that opposition to a new high school in the neighborhood might be somewhat racist. While the guy I was talking to is an ass, I know him well enough to know that he really isn't a noticably racist ass. But he was really offended and annoyed by the other guy bringing up the possibility of racism at the meeting. He was pissy because he's learned to hate what he thinks of as sanctimonious liberals, not because he's defensive about his personal racism.
To clarify -- I think he's wrong to be pissy, and the other guy was right to bring up the possibility.
I was going to say "lost its identification with the working class and seemed to become solicitous of every interest group that defined itself as attractively oppressed. = failed to cater to their racism/sexism/homophobia," but I see that's been covered. Yet I typed it, so here it is.
Jeezus, I'm so sick of hearing African American's and women's concerns described as "special interests". Yet the interests of the minuscule percentage of families who are going to derive benefits in the billions from the inheritance-tax cut are not "special"?
LB, you sanctimonious liberal. This is why baa thinks I'll be a republican fundraiser in five years.
Re:8
Isn't the problem more that "racism" (and by extension sexism and homophobia) are somewhat overloaded to include both overt and more subtle societal forms of racism? This is what makes South Park style anti-PC'ness seem so simple and obvious to people; they don't have white hoods and nooses in the closet, so how the hell can they be racist?! It's bogus, but the defensiveness is really hard to get past.
Hey, I wasn't the one being sanctimonious. I was the one handing the ass a beer and listening to his woes. (Sally's birthday party. The kids had returned from bowling, and were eating cake, as the adults picking them up chatted.)
The other guy? He's the one bringing the Democrats down.
Jeezus, I'm so sick of hearing African American's and women's concerns described as "special interests".
I did say "seemed". I was not trying to support the position. I was trying to explain what certain people of my acquaintance see as the reason for their alienation from the Democratic Party or from liberalism, and to point out that it had nothing to do with union corruption.
This is very simply a politics of whose interest the party appears to be acting in, and a selfish calculation that the answer is "not mine". I don't say it's a correct calculation or a morally laudable one, but that it's a calculation I hear people make all the time.
I think our politics is distorted by widespread "grievance envy." People refuse guilt, by-and-large.
Christopher Lasch claimed, as what he called "The Spiritual Discipline Against Resentment," that MLK's great contribution was to merely claim the same rights as anybody else, without looking back or blaming.
I don't think you'll be raising funds in the traditional sense, Labs, but I can see you attending the conventions.
I think our politics is distorted by widespread "grievance envy." People refuse guilt, by-and-large.
To continue our standing riff on mid-century American thinkers: Did you read McLemee on Rieff, recently?
Yeah. They've been really successful in painting accusations of racism and sexism as magically offensive fighting-words -- you'd better not say anything about either unless you can back it up with proof that the person you're describing is a bad bad evil nasty horrible person.
This is idiotic, of course. I'm a serious feminist, and one that's prone to self-examination. And I think or say sexist stuff (that is, conventionally patriarchical anti-feminist stuff) all the blasted time. Pointing out racism or sexism should not be a huge deal -- perfectly normal, decent people suffer from both, and would benefit from having their attention drawn to it a little more so they could suffer from it less.
(15 was a joke, at least about the sanctimonious part.)
Slol, I'm not accusing you of taking the position you describe, my comment was more or less free-floating rant.
This is a discussion much worth having. I can't imagine voting for a Republican, but my general reaction to liberals is that I hate them and they should shut the fuck up. Possible reasons (the first of which I see on preview Glenn has noted):
1. It's way past time to retire "racist" and "sexist" for all but obvious and overt instances. It makes people super defensive, which is another way of saying that institutional, not-quite-willfull racism and sexism just aren't what most people understand by the terms, and you stop the discussion before it even begins by using them. Think of some other way to talk about it. Ditto "discrimination" and synonyms. You can argue all you want that their use is justfied, but you're still going to lose politically.
2. This. Insofar as "liberal" politicians or "Democrats" are supposed to represent my interest or point of view, their cravenness rankles the more, and they've been plenty craven. Maybe that's going to change.
Unfortunately offline the rest of the day...
Yeah, I think the guilt thing is key. Of course, identifying prejudice isn't about guilt-tripping people, but people react to it that way nonetheless. And the perception that anti-prejudicial arguments are about guilt feeds very nicely into the "weak liberal" meme.
Of course, I'm sure that a lot of the reason that crap is effective is because it does, in fact, hit home: after all, if speaking up for, say, Mexican immigrants = "not standing up for my interests," the underlying presumption is that there's some kind of either/or, zero-sum game going on. I honestly believe that the best way around this is through personal anecdote. It's easy to think that other people are just whining if you don't know much about their realities, but I think it's in the nature of stories to solicit empathy.
widespread "grievance envy."
I always liked the phrase, "misery poker." Not sure where it comes from.
Part of the problem has to be linguistic. "Racism" and "sexism" are pretty powerful accusations in todays world. For obvious reasons, that shouldn't be diluted. We need new words to describe the more subtle stuff, so discussion's can be held without people going "Holy shit, I'm getting called out."
But my feelings were hurt. And I've been otherized. Terribly, terribly otherized.
I would never otherize a crypto-facist Republican-in-waiting like you.
liberals ... should shut the fuck up.
Creating and maintaing this blog is a really counterintuitive way of acheiving that goal.
Creating and maintaing this blog is a really counterintuitive way of acheiving that goal.
But I think ogged's point (if I may speak for him) is that in that incredibly annoying sense, he is not a liberal.
my general reaction to liberals is that I hate them and they should shut the fuck up
Gold medal in the Self-Loathing Olympics goes to Ogged, representing the Mexican National Team.
I'm really suspicious of any argument that starts with 'we need to change the names for things, because the old names are too hurtful'. Where PC did that, it was about letting groups choose their own names -- e.g., enough people of East Asian heritage thought Oriental was offensive that we now say Asian instead. But I can't see a name-change for structural racism that won't get treated as "You conniving bastards of liberals, you're trying to insult me and call me a racist because you think I'm too stupid to know what [new term] really means. I hate you anyway."
I'd rather stick with the same words until people get over it.
This voting bloc is the "NASCAR dad" of 2008:
I can't imagine voting for a Republican, but my general reaction to liberals is that I hate them and they should shut the fuck up.
I can't wait for reporters to show up to film me exchanging butt-focused insults with Ogged.
I'd rather not talk about that kind of thing at all. Otherizing isn't on a serious agenda. You got your heartbreaking divide between rich and poor; this makes people literally sick and weak. You got your terrorist-manufacturing foreign policy and your completely inept defense system. Isn't that enough to chew on?
D. H. Lawrence asserted, in "The White Novels of Fennimore Cooper," that the American character resolved into a pair of polar opposites: A few earnest, self-tortured people, and the rest a mass of escaped slaves, spiritually speaking.
We run to the former, on this site, and fail dysmally when we expect others to feel as we do. A successful progressive politics is when the former — who else would care? — figure out how to appeal to the latter.
re: 36
It's not that we should change the name, it's that we should discriminate(heh) more finely between two very different phenomena. The first is one where we want to be hurtful, where we are calling the person an asshole. The second we don't.
That type of context will never be recogonized unless we formalize it. All the "but we're all racist, including me" in the world won't get past the fact that it's still the same word.
I think Ogged's 27.1 is something to think about, notwithstanding my insistence on identifying spades when I step on 'em and they whack me in the nose. I suspect that the problem with pointing out prejudice is that in implies that the pointer-outer is free of it (as LB's 23 says); in a classroom setting, it works pretty well to preempt defensiveness by offering examples of one's own unconscious bigotry and talking about the distinction between intent and effect, but that doesn't always work so well irl.
OTOH, I think that the other reason that the anti-pc thing has gained such traction is Ogged's #2, and renaming things in order to make them more palatable feeds into the weak meme. Which is one reason I'd just as soon fight this shit out. But it's a tougher problem than it seems at first glance.
identifying spades B is banned!
the problem with pointing out prejudice is that in implies that the pointer-outer is free of it
It's also that imputations of serious character flaws are pieces of heavy-duty conversational machinery which are often used to grab power. And saying, "oh, but we all are, me too!" turns into a self-criticism session.
38 seems right.
A publicist sent me a book for review (weird, I know) called The Trouble With Diversity, by Walter Benn Michaels, which hits a lot of this stuff. I've been trying to get around to writing a somewhat extended review for a week or so now, but work's been getting in the way.
But I think ogged's point (if I may speak for him) is that in that incredibly annoying sense, he is not a liberal.
Maybe I'm being dense, what what incredibly annoying sense? Pointing out racism and sexism is incredibly annoying?
41 -- "spades" s/b "rakes".
12: do think such opposition often has racist motives and effects. But how to say so, in the context of that community meeting, without giving legitimate offense to those in opposition?
47: That's the problem with 'just not talking about it'. Racism may not be the biggest problem out there any more (I'd say economic inequality wins), but we can't make it taboo to talk about it where it's a real possibility just because it will piss people off.
we can't make it taboo
I don't propose making it taboo. I propose focusing on different problems. Making something central doesn't mean outlawing other concerns.
Pointing out racism and sexism is incredibly annoying?
No, of course not. But sanctimony is. And I stick by my earlier position that there are other problems, which strike me as both more important and more politically useful, around which to organize liberalism and Democrats.
Offtopic, but did anyone happen to see this: http://volokh.com/posts/1154326255.shtml
When did Volokh change from intelligent but often schmucky to total idiot?
Sigh. I agree with the commenter on that thread who proposes the corollary to Godwin's Law that the first person who makes a WWII comparison to a modern conflict loses the argument.
Is there any point in noting that the Allies actually invaded Italy?
Of course, identifying prejudice isn't about guilt-tripping people, but people react to it that way nonetheless.
Right, then why do you expect people to change their behavior, if you're not making them feel guilty or ashamed of it?
Accusing somone of racism or sexism is a hurtful, harmful thing to do. You can talk alll you want about how you think people should react, but that's not going to change things. So you have to follow the law of proportionality. Unless the racist/sexist action is serious enough to warrant real reprobation, you let it slide.
I don't like PC either, especially the nuances of PC having to do with micro-sexualities, but this whole argument seems to be situated in some imaginary universe.
We're actually living in the midst of what seems to be an attempted [authoritarian right-wing] takeover, by people who devoutly hope for World War III, World War IV, or best of all, Armageddon.
But we're whining about snotty people who are important only because they happen to belong to our own little social groups, and are furthermore incredibly annoying.
Point of fact: few Democrats are liberals any more. Most are centrists, and many are snots, but being a snot doesn't make you a liberal.
In short, there are a lot of people who should STFU.
this whole argument seems to be situated in some imaginary universe
Well, I think I was trying to say that, and I think ogged was too.
I honestly believe that the best way around this is through personal anecdote.
Everyone who can should get behind the firewall and read Judith Warner today. The-senator-who-represents-me, and not his awesome god, being a mensch again, while I find out that my older brother has learned from talk radio to refer to him as "Dick Turban."
I had this whole long comment written, but it sucked, so let me just say that I'm with LB in 49. I'm wary of applying the "sanctimony" label with too broad a brush.
To me the anti-PC whine is much sillier than the PC whine, so we don't agree. PC is fluff, and anti-PC is meta-fluff.
The Democrats' real problem isn't mostly excessive PC, or issues of any kind. The problem is, above all, the absence of an all-year every-year message machine, which (combined with the abysmal media we've got) means that Democrats always face an uphill fight.
re: the "i do it too!" technique of racism/sexism accusations. I'm not sure if people get quiet after this because they accept the position or if they're just confused. (I suspect it has more to do with the latter.) Regardless, I think the proper response to this is not, "oh, that's ok then," but, "right, and I extended you the benefit of the doubt and the courtesy of letting it slide, why don't you do the same for me?"
I think I'm going with a categorical statement here: If there is a situation of sexism/racism serious enough to merit it being called out, it's not going to be an "I do it too." situation.
re: 60
But there are cirumstances which, while not severe enough in a single instance to merit calling someone out, nonetheless have a cumulative effect that can be extremely damaging. Cf. the mommy wars.
Right. And if you agree that it's unacceptable to 'call someone out' unless it's a big deal, then you can't call them out unless it's a really, really big deal -- the taboo area expands.
But mostly I'm with Emerson and slol on this. PCness should not be the center of liberal politics -- it's just that the people who get worked up about the horrible obnoxiousness of PC are several steps sillier than the overly PC themselves.
then why do you expect people to change their behavior, if you're not making them feel guilty or ashamed of it
Precisely *because* I expect most people to think that racism/sexism is wrong?
if there is a situation of sexism/racism serious enough to merit it being called out, it's not going to be an "I do it too." situation.
I don't think this is true at all. Example: as an undergrad, I went to ask the only black professor in my department, whom I had never met, if he would be willing to supervise my honors thesis. I caught him just as he was leaving his office. Now, in my mind for some reason I had pictured him as older and formally dressed; the man shutting the door was young and wearing an REI-type rain shell. Thinking he was a graduate student, I asked if professor so-and-so were in the office; he said, "I'm he." I said, "oh, I'm sorry, I expected you to be older and more formally dressed." He gave me a long look and asked, "why do you think you expected that? Do your other professors dress more formally than I do?"
I submit that that wasn't, in and of itself, a serious instance of racism; arguably it wasn't racist at all. But the point is, from his point of view, it was a minor instance of you-don't-belong-hereism (which I've grown really used to myself now that I'm a young-looking woman professor, and it gets really old, let me tell you). I often use this anecdote to explain the importance of racism in a broad social sense and why the experience, intent and judgment of example white person (me) aren't necessarily the best indicators of what does and doesn't constitute "serious" breaches of etiquitte.
In any case, I was (properly, I think) mortified.
I realize this story proves Labs' point re. self-examination in 42 correct. Which is why I think that this sort of thing is really useful, actually, in a classroom setting. But I agree that it can seriously hijack political discussions.
I agree with slol more or less all the way through. And I think "unacceptable," in #62, is wrong. What controls is what's useful, not what is somehow ethically appropriate.
Precisely *because* I expect most people to think that racism/sexism is wrong?
Yet you don't expect shame/guilt to be the appropriate emotions at the recognition of a wrongful action?
and, regarding the tale of the black prof. The awkward part was where you told him what you expected him to look like. That's just awkward, and would have been even if he were white. But, I don't get why you're putting this up as an examplum here: he handled it with grace, asking a rather calm question rather than turning on you sternly and going, "miss, that's a racist remark!" What he did, I think, was not just fine, but, I agree with you, an exemplary way to handle it.
if you agree that it's unacceptable to 'call someone out' unless it's a big dea..
I don't think I'd go with the word "unacceptable." It's just that, as you admit, we all mess up, and our disagreement is over to handle that. Do we constantly police, and try to achieve perfection, or do we take a more tolerant approach?
Re: 65
I think most people draw distinctions between behavior that is incorrect that doesn't reflect upon the persons character and behavior that is incorrect which makes us go "Wow, that guy's a schmuck." You should feel guilt if you do the latter, but certainly not if you do the former.
But, I don't get why you're putting this up as an examplum here: he handled it with grace, asking a rather calm question rather than turning on you sternly and going, "miss, that's a racist remark!" What he did, I think, was not just fine, but, I agree with you, an exemplary way to handle it.
Okay, I'd perceive that conversation as calling her out, and I'd think most people who get tense about liberals oppressing them would too. (I think it was justifies, and that he handled it well, but I can't read that as letting it go by.)
It's just that, as you admit, we all mess up, and our disagreement is over to handle that. Do we constantly police, and try to achieve perfection, or do we take a more tolerant approach?
Again, if you're calling what B.'s professor said the 'more tolerant approach', we haven't got anything to argue about. But I have the strong sense that most people who object to PCism would be telling that story as "Help, help, I'm being oppressed!"
I don't know about you people, but if in a social situation someone called me on a racist/sexist remark there is no way, none, that I wouldn't feel some combination of guilt and/or anger. And I would totally not like that person for the rest of the night, and maybe the next week, and maybe the next month, depending on context.
I'm halfway between LB and Michael on 63. As much as it troubles me, I'm closer to Michael here.
But I have the strong sense that most people who object to PCism would be telling that story as "Help, help, I'm being oppressed!
Meaning they'd respond that way themselves, or they'd expect him to?
I have the strong sense that most people who object to PCism would be telling that story as "Help, help, I'm being oppressed!"
I am totally surrounded by people who have an irrational hatred of what they perceive of as PCism, and I disagree.
we haven't got anything to argue about.
Probably not much. We may have both come off a little stronger than we meant to.
I think Emerson and mrh are missing my point. I'm not advocating anti-PC. I'm making three claims.
1. One of the things that has generated so much support for modern Republicanism is a precursor, if you like, of anti-PC, i.e., the perception that the Democrats had turned away from their focus on the working class per se and had begun to focus on sundry oppressed groups. This is not really anti-PC, and it predates PC; see Rieder's Canarsie, e.g.
2. I think organizing liberalism by responding to each of the sundry claims of oppression we generally categorize as PC is therefore a politically bad idea because it loses support that would otherwise accrue to a liberalism focused on working people.
3. I think organizing liberalism that way is also, given the present state of affairs in the country and the world, missing the point.
One other point about the origins of anti-PC sentiment: an awful lot of people's education on race and gender issues consists of (1) MLK and Susan B. Anthony, plus (2) training at work. MLK and Susan B. Anthony are a long time ago, and training at work generally sucks (anything that's done on a broad scale is generally done badly, and that's going to be especially true about anything cultural). So smart and well-meaning people can end up assuming that all that "PC stuff" is just more of the same dumb stuff that they were forced to sit through at work. Such people may just shut down when they think they're about to get more of what they've already heard from some earnest nitwit in "sensitivity training."
68: This is a separate question from whether it's politically productive to call people on racist/sexist shit, but don't you think you'd be better off working on getting over that? Based purely on the 'everyone does it sometimes' rule rather than anything I've noticed about your tendencies toward either (which, to be clear, is nothing), you've probably made racist or sexist remarks without thinking about them. Wouldn't you be better off having someone point them out to you, so you'd be less likely to look like an ass in future?
70: That they, the white student, were being oppressed by the touchiness of the black professor.
Then you're making B's point that for such people, their intent is all. If they don't think they intended to be racist, that's all there is to it.
you-don't-belong-hereism (which I've grown really used to myself now that I'm a young-looking woman professor, and it gets really old, let me tell you).
My sister had a funny story of one month as a surgical resident where she was on a team with a black guy and a Latino guy. First, they immediately began calling themselves the Mod Squad. Second, none of them could get recognized as doctors -- they were respectively a nurse, an orderly, and a janitor.
I seriously bring up the example of blind auditions for symphony orchestras once every week or two in making the point that I'm about to discuss unintentional discrimination.
I'm really not interested in calling anyone out in a social situation, but I do care that a good chunk of the electorate can be led to vote against their own interest by anyone who cares to push their racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynist buttons. Mexicans taking my job? Swarthy terrorists? Let me give you some of these civil rights; I wasn't using them anyway. Homosexuals wanna get married? Bring the Armageddon, if you want, just protect marriage from the gay cooties. Are liberals somehow responsible for this?
Wouldn't you be better off having someone point them out to you, so you'd be less likely to look like an ass in future?
It's not always clear that (a) the accusers are correct, or (b) the accusers are acting in good faith. Moreover, I'm inclined to think that various minority issues are better served if "racism," at a minimum, remains a serious charge that people are careful about over-deploying.
you-don't-belong-hereism ... gets really old
I have been asked, pointedly, by library staff, "Are you sure this is your id?" Even though it has my PICTURE ON IT.
but don't you think you'd be better off working on getting over that?
goodness no. After an internal audit of my own policy (arranged by and conducted by myself) I have come out totally in favor of and in support of my own position.
More seriously, I had a really good friend who was very proper (a much better word than PC, b/c it refers to a different motivator) who did help me perceive that I did make inappropriate comments. But always in situations between ourselves or another close friend. And if I do say somethine inappropriate these days, I'm going to feel bad afterwards when I realize it, regardless of whether someone calls me on it.
After an internal audit of my own policy (arranged by and conducted by myself) I have come out totally in favor of and in support of my own position.
Okay, this was good, and I was verging on the sanctimonious. (Or had toppled over completely into it.)
and training at work generally sucks (anything that's done on a broad scale is generally done badly, and that's going to be especially true about anything cultural).
The place I work settled a discrimination lawsuit shortly after I started there (the official line is that while the suit was meritless, fighting it in court would cost more than settling, so that's what we did.) One of the conditions of the settlement was that the entire staff would participate in a diversity training session. Although almost everyone who works there could be described as liberal to far left, there were a lot of eyes rolled at that one. The funny thing is, it turned out to be about the opposite of what we expected: instead of some sort of liberal guilt trip, we received a talk from a lawyer on how to harass someone right up to the point the law allowed, and no further.
Id be pleased if Racism, a name whose very form suggests an ideology, were reserved for intentional acts and expressions. Something like "unconscious racial prejudice" would be fine for the other.
Are liberals somehow responsible for this?
No, but candidates who want to win elections have to run political campaigns in that country, the country we actually live in. I think liberals ought to want to win elections, so they can implement policy that improves the country in a liberal way. So I think liberalism ought to focus on those issues that will make this possible.
It's not always clear that (a) the accusers are correct, or (b) the accusers are acting in good faith.
Right, I want to emphasize this b/c it's important. Calling someone out is a sign of dislike, another reason to dislike the caller. Secondly, it's a stormy topic, and if the occurance in question isn't clear (and, really, when is anything clear to everyone?) either a) an unwanted discussion ensues or b) the callee lets it slide, and he and his friends resent the caller.
83 -- I was asked the same question, in a rather incredulous tone, by my psychoanalyst.
22: Yes. I. did.
Oh. Good, wasn't it?
I tend to be humorless about sexist/racist language, to the point where they mock me at work for calling people on it. I try to be nice about it, but I don't stay quiet, and I expect to be called on it, too. Racism and sexism are ingrained in our culture in some very ugly ways and if no one ever says 'Do you realise that's not right?' no one will ever realise that no, it's not right to call people offensive names/perpetuate dumb stereotypes. It's irritating and embarrassing to get called out for racism or sexism, but I can't think it's more irritating or embarrassing than being someone who is hurt by ugly names, so it's something to cope with and hopefully learn from.
To me the whole PC debate is basically a way for rude people to stomp on civilized behavior. It's a triumph of the petty lazy side of human nature that people complain about not being allowed to refer to groups of people in ways that are hurtful.
There are people who use politeness to shut down discussion- I know people I can't have conversations with because they can spend all day parsing language for insults to the most obscure groups, but I am willing to bet that most of the people who complain about 'PC' are not dealing with the whole hir/shim/whatever crowd, but people like me who patiently reminds her coworkers that calling trans people 'she-males' is not a way to win friends and influence people.
This has been my one serious comment for the whole year, I promise.
Calling someone out is a sign of dislike,
No. Really no. I called Ogged out on something he said to L. (is she still reading? If so, hi!) in the thread where she delurked. He made a joke about harassing her, and I pointed out that even though he was clearly and absolutely kidding, that the joke reinforced the norm that if you're a teenage girl, you're sexual prey. If you run into people who will treat you like something other as prey, you got lucky, but you shouldn't count on it.
And I really like Ogged. He's why I started hanging out here so much -- the comments section hadn't yet coalesced into the bizarre entity it has become, so back then the blogger's personality was a much bigger part of the site. Calling someone out really needn't be hostile, or indicative of generalized dislike, or meaning anything more than "I wish you wouldn't do that anymore."
91: It was great. Understanding "the best that has been thought and said in the world" as of my growing up about 1970, and realizing that to a certain extent a great period was ending right about that time, has been a pre-occupation of mine, as you can tell just from the way I mention it.
Thinking about what I was go with instead of "inappropriate" from upthread. Basically, I think we all can agree that there are ways to disapprove without making it explicit. Shifting your attention away from someone, or changing the way you address them. Or, like B's prof, ask a question which doesn't specifically allude to race, but has it in its undertones. These methods are strong clues that behavior is disapproved of, but without the negative effects of explicitly calling someone out.
Certainly, some types will brand even this mild behavior as "being too PC." But it's also the case that a lot of people who think of themselves as anti-PC will approve of these tactics.
a great period was ending right about that time
I think this is true and not, to my knowledge, adequately analyzed.
instead of "inappropriate"
How about "tacky"? I find this to be a powerful standard for what not to do. If it's tacky, don't do it.
92: Re stereotypes and such, I think it's actually kind of cool to live in a place where ethnic humor and playing around with stereotypes are alive but mostly harmless. I may be wrong, but I tend to think the goal is to get to a world where calling Ogged a lazy Mexican is harmless, not unthinkable. But, as I say, I could be wrong, and even if I'm not, it's something that has to be treated with a whole lot of caution by us pale types.
93. I should have been more precise. My friend's calling me out was not a sign of dislike, either. But if someone is an acquaintance, or peripheral friend, then, generally, can we agree that they'll be lenient towards you if they like you, and intolerant of you if they don't?
Heh. I love that album.
"Minimum Wage! HieeeYah!!!"
If it's tacky, don't do it.
This leads perfectly into the question I wanted to ask before refreshing. Have any of you guys run into the phenomenon that I'm going to call "hipsterish ironic racism"? In which offhandedly racist comments are intended to be edgily self-aware, and the person who challenges them is made to feel stupid for presuming that the hipster is serious? Squirm.
I love that album.
Indeed. Although, the opening track now makes me stoop with age: "A brand new record, for 1990..." Aiee!
88: I agree, but it's not liberals who keep these issues at center stage, it's the right. So if right wing candidate X accuses liberal candidate Y of supporting gay marriage and abortion, what is Y supposed to say? What I think he should say is: yes I do, and X wants to make sure that if you go bankrupt you'll lose your house. If Y says: oh uh, no, I only support abortion in the case of rape or incest, he's lost my vote, because I expect when he gets to congress he'll cave on every other issue.
99: Okay, but that's a characteristic of criticism generally, not a reason that criticism for thoughtless racism or sexism, as Winna says, should be particularly out of line.
(And I don't call people out all the time, of course. It just really bothers me that bringing up racism is treated by lots of people as as offensive, or more offensive, than actually saying something racist.)
I think context is important, certainly. But the problem with playing with stereotypes is that even playing with them tends to reinforce them. I don't directly call people on the marginal things, because otherwise I'd be at it all day, and I try to make it as neutral an observation as possible, because it is embarrassing to have someone tell you that you're out of line.
I stopped someone once from making Asian jokes by calling them 'roundeye'. Sometimes fighting fire with fire can work, too.
Have any of you guys run into the phenomenon that I'm going to call "hipsterish ironic racism"? In which offhandedly racist comments are intended to be edgily self-aware, and the person who challenges them is made to feel stupid for presuming that the hipster is serious?
Yes. Hate it. Deal with it by embracing my uncoolness and doing a wide-eyed, "Oh, that was a joke. I'm sorry, I wasn't following." "Was that another joke?" which at least breaks up the rhythm of it, and makes it less fun for everyone.
In which offhandedly racist comments are intended to be edgily self-aware, and the person who challenges them is made to feel stupid for presuming that the hipster is serious?
mea culpa. sorry, j-mo.
yes I do, and X wants to make sure that if you go bankrupt you'll lose your house
Here we agree. The rhetoric wants refined, as our Pittsburgher friends would say, but that's the message, I think.
86:
"we received a talk from a lawyer on how to harass someone right up to the point the law allowed, and no further."
They were being ironic, right? Right?
102: I tend to avoid commenting here on serious things for that exact reason- I'm never certain if comments are intended to be an ironic hipster joke which is obvious to everyone but me. Being as humorless as I am about some things, it's really easy to fall into that trap.
I'm not sure of the scope of PC. It seems powerful in academia, non-profits, parts of government, and perhaps some big for-profit organizations. Sometimes it's motivated by fear of lawsuits, and other times by reforming impulses.
I've spent a moderate amount of time in (A) venues where open racism-sexism-homophobia is still OK, more in (B) places where the racism-sexism-homophobia has to be veiled, but is still a big factor, and some in (C) places where PC rules. [I suppose I should add (D), places where none of this is a big factor because it's all been hashed out.]
What I'd say myself depends on which venue is being discussed, but in the public discussion a lot of A/B people whine as though they were in C, and a lot of C people pretend that they're in A.
The PC issue can be confused thith the Dem strategy of zeroing in on sexual and racial minorities based on their stereotype issues. It's related, but different.
I agree with slol 73 that, to the extent that the Dems really are identified with PC, that's bad. I tend to encounter the issue as oral-tradition whining.
106: I guess I'm less worried about stereotypes per se, since a lot of them really do have something to do with real cultures that really shape real people, and more about how stereotypes get used to define some people as outside the "normal" culture.
This leads perfectly into the question I wanted to ask before refreshing. Have any of you guys run into the phenomenon that I'm going to call "hipsterish ironic racism"? In which offhandedly racist comments are intended to be edgily self-aware, and the person who challenges them is made to feel stupid for presuming that the hipster is serious? Squirm.
This is related to the exchange you and I had before, isn't it, where I said Trilling was onto this special American style?
Don't let it stop you. Really don't.
bad time to share my new "Sexism is Sexy!" t-shirt?
115 to 111. And to 110, I'm sure it's not a joke. I can completely imagine a talk on what sorts of being mean to people are actionable harassment, and what is just good clean all-American fun.
Re "hipsterish ironic racism," if the intended reaction is a challenge that can then be mocked, it's an asshole move and a clear sign that whatever was said is not something that can be said in a humorous way by someone of the speaker's race and gender at that time and place.
Things I think are true:
1) It is true that all else being equal, a socially liberal Republican is still a Republican and will support broadly Republican goals. What doesn't follow from that, unless I am a diehard Democrat, is that I should vote for a less capable Democrat. Presumably an ineffective Democratic mayor is worse on issues I care about than an effective social liberal Republican. I get the sense that LB was speaking to the generally-die-hard-but-recent-mayoral-Republican converts, but I did want to point out that as far as appealing to undecideds, this argument won't carry a lot of weight.
2) The problem with the PC battle isn't just that it's been successfully framed as a bunch of whiny rich kids finding oity causes to feel bad about, though I think that's most of it. It's also that there seems to be a gap between what I except to happen if I call someone 'racist' in the common usage sense and what happens if I call them a 'racist' in the academic, liberal sense. If I call someone racist in the normal sense, I'm harshly condemning their behavior and maybe their character, and I'm holding them responsible for it and pressuring them to change.
If I call someone a racist in the academic liberal sense, I'm not calling them a bad person, nosirree. In fact, they may be racist without thinking about it or really, doing anything at all. And while I agree intellectually that it's a real problem, it's a very hard one to sell because 'racist' is a term that also rightly applies to lots of horrible individual decisions.
'You're racist!' cries the strawliberal, "because your firm doesn't have an affirmative action policy. But we don't mean that you're bad, or even that you know you're racist, or that you mean to be racist. We just mean that your firm isn't actualizing a progressive future. But we don't mean to blame you! It's just a structure"
I honestly think it's the unwillingness to blame anyone that makes people roll their eyes and think that racism isn't a problem. It's a problem. We're calling it racism, which is what we used to call the Jim Crow laws. But it's not anyone fault. Heck I'm racist too! We are all racist! But we're OK!
And I think there's a strong presumption that if it's not a problem that can be solved by pointing fingers or expecting people to change their individual behavior, it's probably a manufactured, made-up problem.
IDP, did you quote the wrong text in 114?
114--Not directly, but I'm willing to give you and Trilling credit for any intelligent point in my earlier comment.
111--It can be tricky for me too, since I tend towards the "humorless" end of the Unfoggedariat spectrum. It gets me differently when I hear such jokes out loud, though; I read crazy shit on the internet all the time, and perhaps falsely presume that people are kinder and saner in person.
113: That is true, and that's when I try to intervene. It's a lot of what I do at work, because I live in a Southern Suburban Nexus of Ordinary and people are nice, but have a big cultural push toward othering. I am fond of them, but I can't take the racism and sexism. They seem to forgive me for being occasionally a little too earnest.
120: Were you trying to come up with the word haole? You've got to work on accuracy of slurring.
120: See, that's kind of the point. "Haole" is a harmless descriptor. "Stupid fucking haole" used in earnest isn't. And, for that matter, it's something I'd use myself in speaking of a certain sort of over-entitled tourist.
Also, it's a good rule not to try ethnic humor when you can't spell the ethnic term you're trying to use. [Emoticon deleted]
Is there an ethnic slur for bad spellers?
Although almost everyone who works there could be described as liberal to far left, there were a lot of eyes rolled at that one.
That's because all sensitivity training, ime, is completely banal. In-depth discussion of why photocopying porn on the office copier and commenting on the associate's ass is bad. Or secretaries being ordered to sleep with top executives for their jobs while wearing bad 80s suits. Most of them read like bad porn plots.
Of course, given that none of this is a terribly common phenomenon in the genial office we had, it's basically an excuse for everyone to wander around going "It's sexual harassment and I don't have to take it."
What doesn't follow from that, unless I am a diehard Democrat, is that I should vote for a less capable Democrat. Presumably an ineffective Democratic mayor is worse on issues I care about than an effective social liberal Republican.
The problem with this argument is that effective/ineffective is really hard to separate from other issues. If anything reduced crime in NY other than the national trend, it was probably the extra cops Dinkins put on the streets. But you don't see him getting credit for that. Freddy Ferrer got dissed as 'too inexperienced' to run NY -- really, is there any experience more relevant to running NYC than being an NYC borough president? He's been in city politics for decades.
The effective/ineffective metric looks objective, but it's often fairly badly supported by facts or evidence. What team someone is playing on is something you can know.
132 continued: But really I was talking mostly to people who would have their fingernails pulled out rather than vote for a Republican for President or Congress (most of NYC) but somehow think that parties don't matter in local politics.
126, 127: I knew I should have looked it up.
He's been in city politics for decades.
And he sounded really tired of it, frankly.
124: No, something JM said about racial remarks during the world cup led to an exchange where I was reminded of something Trilling said about American vs. British snobbery, in his introduction to Homage to Catalonia.
Somewhere in Europe, Silvana will be laughing at the syntax of that last sentence.
But really I was talking mostly to people who would have their fingernails pulled out rather than vote for a Republican for President or Congress (most of NYC) but somehow think that parties don't matter in local politics.
This sort of party-switching seems to be really common, and I suspect on both sides of the aisle, too. How many states vote GOP in presidential elections but have significant local union Dem presence? Or vote GOP nationally but have Democratic governors? Small-town politics is just weird that way.
Aha. IDP is talking about the comments to this post; I discover that I repeat myself (repeat myself), and that his memory is better than mine.
Santayana, when he visited England, quite gave up the common notion that Dickens' characters are caricatures.
True. Also, Lewis Carroll? Hyper-realism.
the comments to this post
Gary Farber said...
(I have a blogging friend who, although blogging little in recent times, has a history of doing this, and while I've reacted strongly on occasion, mostly I've just kept my mouth shut and not responded, because I'm sure I would have seemed as if I were over-reacting, but it still drives me crazy, and I'd really like to find a way to politely, and in friendly -- but firm! -- fashion, say "no, damnit, we're not all full of what you say are middle-class prejudices that every in group X shares about A, B, and C! My common reaction is the reverse of the one you claim we all "secretly" feel! Damnit!")
Farber, you sneaky Jew...
Oh, that's funny. I saw that and wondered who he was talking about.
I was trying really hard not to enquire into that.
When did the Mormons stop sucking snake venom? You sort of glossed over that part.
really Emerson, it's not like you to miss such an obvious euphamism.
I honestly think it's the unwillingness to blame anyone that makes people roll their eyes and think that racism isn't a problem. It's a problem. We're calling it racism, which is what we used to call the Jim Crow laws. But it's not anyone fault. Heck I'm racist too! We are all racist! But we're OK!
But the entire point is that the question of fault and intention matters a lot less than the question of effect. Which ironically is Michael's point: my intent in saying, "Michael, that's a racist remark" matters less than the effect of that statement on him. What's so frustrating about the "don't call me racist/sexist/homophobic" argument is the presumption that the effect on *me* of being called names is more important than the effect of my casual remarks to someone else.
Then again, sure, people who are constantly on the search for something to be offended by are tiresome. But surely that's no reason to preemptively declare that it's simply not possible that one could ever say something offensive and that people shouldn't point it out if you do.
144--When dowsing proved so much more profitable. Duh.
I think the key question here is not whether to call people out, but how. Example:
"What you just said was racist." "What? I'm not racist! You're just oversensitive and PC." BAD
"Dude, that was kind of offensive." "Really? How?" GOOD
See?
I'm the only one humming "Everybody's a little bit racist" from Avenue Q to myself, right?
Speaking of calling people out, if anyone thinks I'm full of shit about ethnic humor being pretty much harmless once the stereotypes it's reinforcing become pretty much harmless, I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Teo, I'd still think you were a ninny if you called stuff "offensive."
I think that it's fair, but I also think the stereotype has to become harmless first -- I don't think making jokes about a still-malignant stereotype helps wear the edges off it. (That is, anyone who wants to tell Mick jokes at me can go ahead; in fact, I do have an extensive family history of alcoholism.)
But the entire point is that the question of fault and intention matters a lot less than the question of effect.
I think they're connected. We've talked about jokey in-group insults; apo insults ogged's Guatemalan heritage whenever he can. But if someone seriously insulted ogged, we'd be angry with him even if he used the same words that apo does. (The n-word or "bitch" used as a term of familiarity rather than an insult certainly weighs intent and context heavily.)
And intent informs effect. I think there's a difference between the guy who won't hire blacks because he thinks they're all dirty thieves and the guy who doesn't hire blacks because none of them ever apply to his prestigious lily-white law firm. The effects, true, are largely similar. The second guy, assuming he's being honest, I can probably convince.
More to the point, I think the second guy does, too, and lumping him in with the open bigot under the term 'racist' hasn't lead to him reconsidering his opinions, but concluding that liberals are so out of touch that they wouldn't recognize a real problem if it was in their face and wiggling. This has been helped along by a sly Republican machine, but I don't think it's been created out of thin air.
151: How's "Dude, that was such bullshit. Like, way, way, uncool, man." To which the reply could be "[questioningly] Dude? [thoughtfully] Duuuude."
151: I think that a person is a ninny if he calls something "offensive" despite not actually being offended by it. That inevitably leads to the offensive person saying "I can't seriously believe you were offended by that", and the ninny saying "No, but I think somebody could be, based on my stereotypes of the kind of people who tend to be offended by that."
But if you're actually offended by something I say, I would expect you to say "that's offensive". However, because of the attitude voiced in post #151, I would not recommend that you actually use the word "offensive". Say "I'm Jewish and I don't appreciate that" or something.
What I would like to see here is a post about people being unjustly accused of child abuse.
I'm for it. Keeps the rest of us on our toes.
148, etc.: It's a wonder we've made any progress at all. If someone says something offensive, you give him a dirty look, and then you key his car.
The point of using "offensive" is that, unlike "racist," it gets the point across without implying anything bad about the person's character (because it's not generally used to describe people). Other words with that property would work just as well.
So much depends on the context, and what you know about the person making the remark, and what you hope to accomplish by correcting them. That said, I think my approach generally would be something like, "Ok, that's funny, but my inner ninny feels compelled to note that [insert here a fact, either about harms, or the way falseness of what's been said]."
I don't know if I've ever done this. The closest thing I can think of is making a lazy Mexican joke myself, and then noting that since I moved to California, I've realized that Mexicans work much harder than anyone else. You gotta establish your street cred first, you know?
152:
"Who threw the overalls in Mrs. Murphy's chowder?"
Nobody answered so I shouted all the louder,
"It's a Irish trick it's true,
But I can lick the Mick who threw
The overalls in Mrs. Murphy's chowder."
The problem with "offensive" is that people who get offended (as opposed to "even" or "pissed off") are ninnies.
The point of using "offensive" is that, unlike "racist," it gets the point across without implying anything bad about the person's character (because it's not generally used to describe people).
I disagree; I think that in the last 20 or so years the "proudly non-P.C." demographic has come to receive exactly the same message from "That was offensive" that they receive from "That was racist".
The message that reaches their ears in both cases is "You, a well-meaning average Joe, accidentally said something that I, a nitpicking pantywaist, am now going to make a big deal out of."
I use 'dude' as a reproach all the time. I used to have a roommate who said 'dude' and it was hysterical in her thick hill accent, so I started saying 'dude!' to mock her. Now I too sound like some sort of crypto-Valley Girl.
I also agree with not reproaching people about things unless they actually bother you.
I still hear Ole and Lena jokes and Pat and Mike jokes around here. Roughly speaking, ethnic jokes become inoffensive shortly before they stop being funny.
You do have counteroffensive jokes, e.g. "Jewish jokes", told by the target population. It would be interesting to do a dual collection and find out if any anti-Semitic Jewish jokes were also told by Jews. My guess is that the two groups of jokes hardly overlap at all.
"Rabbi Lev was coming back from poisoning wells when he met Rabbi Schmuel with a Christian child for the Passover matzohs...."
It's a wonder we've made any progress at all. If someone says something offensive, you give him a dirty look, and then you key his car.
SCMT gets it.
I had a coach who once blamed my i(nfamously) short temper on my being Irish.
I'm not Irish.
152: Agreed. There's also the matter of stereotypes that are still malignant in some places/times/groups but not malignant in others.
I'm not Irish.
You had a duty to respond by telling him that, to see if he would reply with "I beg to differ."
There was an anti-Semitic cartoon contest a few months ago, John. Does that count? I can't remember if it was posted here or not.
The 'don't forget to control the media' one cracks me up.
Would any of the people who are criticizing my use of "offensive" care to propose a more suitably masculine term for the same purpose? Or do you disagree with 159 as well?
Ned's 163 is the better criticism of "offensive."
171: I can see your approach working in the right circumstances, but there's also something to be said for the pained silence/change the subject approach. It conveys disapproval without giving the person a chance to get self-righteous about being called out. The weakness is that you don't get the chance to explain why what was said was offensive, but in a lot of cases the explanation is going to get ignored anyway.
Just to return briefly to the point of partisan afiliation, I think Cala's 119 is generally true. It's ever more true if you aren't a doctrinaire partisan. There are people out there who hold views that do not map on absolutely to one party or another, but have a general partisan valence. These are the people who will try hardest to "vote competance" or to at least discern who is strongest on the issues that interest them most. This effect is magnified, I suspect in local elections, where 95% of the job is trying to optimize within a bunch of prior constraints. It's also the case that, in the Northeast at least, party affiliation is a less helpful guide to level of concordance with liberal social policy, and a more helpful guide to degree of closeness with public sector unions.
Also, I blame all you bastards for driving David Chapelle of the air.
We may be talking about different situations. I'm not talking about the Proudly Anti-PC folks.
What are some real-life examples of things people have said that y'all have wanted to "call out"? I'm not sure I can think of any: generally I find that people are either clearly joking, or beyond hope.
171: I think the problem is the one ogged describes in #160: context matters a lot. "Offensive" is going to be understood by some subset of the people to whom you are speaking as code for "racist," or "sexist," or whatever. Sometimes it's appropriate to be confrontational. Sometimes it's appropriate to just let it go. And sometimes you just file it away for future reference. Assuming you're working in a pretty supportive environment, most people are going to be reacting the same way that you are. It all adds up; it's not as if you're shouldering this burden alone.
153: My point was that people too often fall back on the defensive "well I didn't mean it that way" nonsense, when the point isn't what you meant, it's what you said. But yes, that said, intent obviously matters.
Re. ninnies and nitpicking pantywaists, I just don't think that there are nearly as may nitpicking ninnies as people act like there are. Yeah, one occasionally runs into some leftier-than-thou type, and such people are annoying. But what's annoying isn't their pcness; what's annoying is that they're smug assholes. If they weren't smug about pc whateveritis, they'd be smug about some other shit.
That is, anyone who wants to tell Mick jokes at me can go ahead
LB, this is the squarest sense of ethnic humor evar.
Okay, real-life example:
My mom was once making fun of the name of the Columbia Engineering School, and when I said that that was kind of racist she got offended. What would you have done?
171, I don't think there's any way to tell somebody that they said something rude/offensive/racist/insensitive/objectionable that's any better than the alternatives.
Basically, if you tell somebody they did something wrong, he becomes defensive. He starts trying to convince himself that it's you who is wrong. In our society, everyone has heard of mythical examples of PC insanity, and therefore it's extremely easy for him to fit your objection into that frame, and respond by rolling his eyes and saying "I'm sorry, I guess. Whatever."
No matter how you phrase your objection to the offensive remark, I think the person will respond in either of two ways:
A: "Well I'm sorry if I wasn't PC enough for this granola-smoking tea party, but I call 'em like I see 'em. Don't mess with Texas. Please notice that I'm rolling my eyes in impatience. You are gay."
B: "Oh, I'm really sorry. I didn't realize that what I said could have been offensive."
Again, the way you phrase it doesn't matter. The only way you can actually get through to somebody who is likely to respond with A is to
1) actually be a member of the insulted group
2) actually be offended
3) somehow not give the impression that you have ever objected to anything before but this time he has really crosed the line.
Again, the way you phrase it doesn't matter.
Bullshit. There's a world of difference between "You are a racist asshole" and "Could you try to not say stuff like that?" no matter who you're talking to.
Moms don't count, Teo! Moms say crazy shit, and the only way to respond is by pitching a fit.
Does anyone have a non-mom example for ogged?
176: The realtor in Boise who made some comment, now forgotten, about undesireable neighborhoods and not wanting to live near "those" people.
The woman in New Jersey who assumed that my Puerto Rican best friend carrying her baby was my nanny, and who spoke over her head to ask me how old the baby was. (My friend said, "he's MY baby!" and the woman fell all over herself explaining that she thought she was the nanny. What an asshole.)
The neighbor across the street, who is a really nice guy, who admires my cat because she "fights like a Mexican." (Parallels to Ogged cease here; apparently the cat does not have cancer. Whew!)
The new next-door neighbor who just moved in who said that rents in this town are too high "because of all the foreigners." I really wish I'd had the presence of mind to say, "like me?" but instead I was angrily thinking that the southeast Asian immigrants he was probably referring to mostly live up north in really cheap and nasty apartment complexes.
The students who complain about living up north in cheap and nasty apartment complexes by saying that they live in "the part of town with all the crack houses." If this town has a crack problem, I'm a monkey's uncle.
What is the name of the Columbia Engineering School. I googled, and it wasn't immediately apparent.
We may be talking about different situations. I'm not talking about the Proudly Anti-PC folks.
Oh, okay. Disregard much of 181, then.
I think "offensive" is still a stereotypically PC thing to say, even given that PC people do not actually exist. If we avoid stereotypical phrases, and if we act like it's not a big deal (in other words, begin by saying "By the way..."), we can get through to people.
Oh god no, Ned, "by the way" is really tiresome. Much better to just address it head on: "what do you mean, she fights like a Mexican?"
My mom was once making fun of the name of the Columbia Engineering School, and when I said that that was kind of racist she got offended. What would you have done?
Wondered how the hell one could make fun of the name, for one.
Like ogged, I can't think of many situations where someone jokes and its clearly offensive and the person is intending to offend and they're not beyond hope.
"Ok, that's funny, but my inner ninny feels compelled to note that...
Ogged, when did you become Dave Chapelle imitating a white person?
Bullshit. There's a world of difference between "You are a racist asshole" and "Could you try to not say stuff like that?" no matter who you're talking to.
I think if you are actually talking to a racist asshole, there's no difference. The trick is to avoid talking to the racist asshole, and turn to some other person and say "Can you believe that guy? What a racist asshole". Now he's outnumbered. The majority of people think he's a racist asshole. Perhaps they're right!
Of course, the next step for him is to say "God damn it, I know I'm a racist asshole. Everyone is a racist asshole, I'm just honest enough to admit it." I have heard people say this.
There was a guy I know who made anti-Arab comments, and toned them down when asked to stop.
185: Oh, I forgot one of my favorites. The customers at the restaurant my best girlfriend (she of the nanny story) worked at during summers who would ask her if she was taking classes at the local community college and who would laugh at her and say "yeah, right" when she said she was a student at Notre Dame.
186: The Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science.
Would any of the people who are criticizing my use of "offensive" care to propose a more suitably masculine term for the same purpose?
Nigga, that's some [racist/sexist] bull-shit!
191: See, I'm not talking about actual racist assholes. I'm talking about well-meaning people who don't realize the implications of what they say.
That's a racist or sexist assumption, as opposed to being a classist asshole? (Disclosure: worked a summer during college in fast food. Heard more than once: "if you weren't so dumb you'd get my order right and wouldn't be in this dead end job?")
If you are talking to a racist asshole, the last thing that is going to help is a 'it's not your fault, we're all secretly racist." No, no, let's be clear. He's the asshole, we're not, and it's his damn fault he is. If it's not his fault, he's probably not an asshole.
The person in my department who thought it was a-okay to call trans people 'chicks with dicks' because that's what it says on the porn box.
The woman who thought that it was okay to make a joke about people with Down's Syndrome in a meeting.
The man who said all Muslims should be shipped off to a desert island and then the island should be nuked from the air.
The guy who called Muslims 'towelheads'.
The realtor who reassured me that there weren't many of 'those colored folks' in the apartment complex.
The lady who thought 'Chink' was an acceptable thing to call Asian people.
I could go on, and on, and on. Bigotry is part of the socially acceptable bonding mechanism here, at least if the number of times I've had to say 'hey! that is totally not okay' to people means anything.
Ok, those are good examples B, although you should have numbered them.
The realtor: if this person was going to be your regular realtor, then it would have been good to say something about "we're happy to live near those people." If not your regular realtor, oh well.
The woman/nanny thing sounds like it was handled.
Does he mean "fights like a Mexican" as in "fights dirty," or "fights well"? Big difference!
The neighbor thing all depends on what kind of relationship you want with your neighbor.
Dude, I know where you live, and I've heard about the crack houses there. Seriously.
197: My girlfriend is a very dark-skinned Puerto Rican with kinky hair. I'm a blonde gringa. When I waited tables and answered similar questions by saying where I went to college, no one argued with me.
A colleague and I once discovered that our grandmothers both referred to those long, brown nuts (Brazil nuts? Macadamia nuts?) that are often in nut mixes as 'n-- toes.'
We don't think our grandmothers are assholes, just beyond hope due to age and circumstance.
Winna, most of those people would seem to me to be in the "beyond help" category. Do you really engage them?
There was a guy I know who made anti-Arab comments, and toned them down when asked to stop.
When he loves Arabs in his heart, baa, then your job will be done.
I did say that to the realtor, actually. But the point is (as my girlfriend likes to say) it's amazing what white people will say to other white people when they think no one is listening. It isn't an oh well if she's not my regular realtor, because it suggests that she actively steers people into segregated neighborhoods, which is illegal.
198: Maybe you're nicer than I am. All of those people I am comfortable with labelling as 'racist', 'asshole', and 'probably beyond the hope of help from a mild protest.' Doesn't mean I don't protest, just I don't think it's going to convince them that PC people aren't out to get them.
I do. It might only mean they don't talk that way in front of me, but if they realise that not everyone likes that kind of language it's at least a start.
The porn box woman was actually surprised when I explained that wasn't a nice thing to call people, which I think is kind of sad.
My mom was once making fun of the name of the Columbia Engineering School
This situation cannot be properly evaluated until we see pictures of your mom.
It isn't an oh well if she's not my regular realtor, because it suggests that she actively steers people into segregated neighborhoods, which is illegal.
Why isn't that still an "oh well"? Like she's going to stop if you say something?
The porn box woman was actually surprised when I explained that wasn't a nice thing to call people
Well, men don't mind being called "men with dicks", so what's the problem?
197: Oh crap, yeah. My mom's family does that shit too. And they would just laugh at me when I was a girl and I objected.
Nowadays my uncle knows better, at least, to pull that crap when my son's around. Oddly, I really like my Limbaugh-loving racist asshole uncle. I do wish he wouldn't vote, though.
204 is 180% correct. I imagine other groups are the same way in their own ranks- I once had an African American friend tell me that she'd always been told white people smelled like dogs when they got wet, which I found kind of hilarious.
Living near crack houses can be okay.
This situation cannot be properly evaluated until we see pictures of your mom.
Now this is one of those responses that can be made to pretty much any comment.
Ned, if we learned what to call people based on porn box titles the world would be a strange place.
'Don't call that woman white! She's a cracker slutbag! Don't you have any manners?'
208: No, probably not just from me saying something. But if more of her white clients objected when she pulled that kind of crap, she might, yeah.
Heard more than once: "if you weren't so dumb you'd get my order right and wouldn't be in this dead end job?")
The correct response is to get them a replacement.
"Sorry about that, this time I gave your order extra special attention. Enjoy every bite."
210: I have an uncle who seems to be convinced that there will be a Black on White war (this is why we needs the guns, you see) in the near future and he had my baby sister all worried when she was about ten or eleven and she and I went out to lunch because she had overheard his dumbass comments and her closest friend was dark-skinned (Indian, I think) and she wasn't sure if she'd have to fight her friend.
I at this point pitched a royal fit, or as royal as one can get in a booth at a crappy Mexican restaurant, and pretty much told her he was out of his mind and a racist asshole and she wasn't to listen to him. She giggled and understood (this was back in the days when big sisters were like unto goddesses). But he's beyond hope.
When he loves Arabs in his heart, baa, then your job will be done.
I'm trying to get him started on the Iron Sheik.
214, I don't think you should call someone a cracker slutbag unless she is actually holding hands with a hung ebony buck. You wouldn't draw attention to her race if she was surrounded by other white people, you'd just call her a naughty housewife or a barely legal fuck kitten.
Here's a more extended version of the example I gave in comments over at my blog. The guy in question was my honey's brother, also a Long Island, er, Mexican, and he kept inserting completely irrelevant and somewhat belligerent comments into the conversation, like "Black people would be into that!" or "It's a good thing there's aren't any Black people around!" (I can't remember any of the exact comments; they were pretty inane.) It seemed to be some sort of weird joke, so I ignored it.
Then, one evening when it was more frequent and starting to get on my nerves, I said a bit jokingly, and to be honest, probably a bit prissily, "You know, if you keep saying that, some people are going to think you're not joking." To which he replied something like "Oh, I know it's awful; my black friends and I say the most awful things to each other; anyone who said this sort of thing seriously would be such a racist asshole."
And I was left going, huh.
About a month later we discovered that he filed his CDs into three folders: black, white, and girls. That left us gasping with laughter, even if it's not so clear what the catagorization scheme proves, if anything.
I googled the Iron Sheik, and he is pretty darn cute.
224: 219. At which I laughed while suspecting that I shouldn't.
221: Why would anyone arrange their music that way? It doesn't even make sense. Was it based on traditionally ethnic forms of music, like jazz or country, or what?
JM, your response seems just right, and the dude clearly has issues.
I'm trying to get him started on the Iron Sheik.
Iranians: the gateway crush to Arabs.
225: I laughed too. Am I now the resident ninny?
Iranians: the gateway crush to Arabs.
This situation cannot be properly evaluated until we see pictures of your mom.
222 refers to the Palestinian rapper. I was bewildered by the reference to Iranians until I googled further.
229: No, just the one who'd engaged the "what do you say when someone says something offensive" thing most recently.
(As a general rule, I think that circumstances in which white guys can get away with playing with stereotypes about black people are vanishly rare. But as I'm typing that, it occurs to me that I have no basis for assuming that Crypic Ned is a white guy, thus exposing my own subconscious racism. And, for that matter, I haven't spent nearly enough time with enough black people to have much of a clue what I'm talking about, so I may very well be trying too hard to be inoffensive and thus failing to connect. Also, the comment was beautifully structured and funny as hell, which counts for a lot.)
Was it based on traditionally ethnic forms of music, like jazz or country, or what?
No. IIRC, we were looking for Sinatra, and brother was saying, "No, no, no, he couldn't be in that folder; that's for black people's music. And that one's girls." It makes no sense, although it does remind me of going out clubbing in Germany to hear "Blackmusik," or however they spelled it, and wondering whether I was going to hear blues, soul, Motown, rap, drum-n'-bass, or what.
The guy who called Muslims 'towelheads'.
Mickey Kaus has taught me this is not bad because it is not an ethnic slur.
Ah, but my father-in-law's use of the word 'sand-nigger' was an ethnic slur. (I don't know if I actually called him out. I gave him the long, soulful, basset-hound-like stare, intended to convey "You know Buck married city people. Please don't make me object to this, you know I'm trying to lay low and not be difficult." And he got embarrassed and stopped saying it.)
235: I've heard sand-nigger, camel jockey, and rag/towelhead from my various horribly racist family members, and after years of fighting and arguing with them and just seeing them get happily worse, I think I can safely say they're beyond hope and always were. The weird thing about them is that side of the family is almost wholly Arabs, and they're not using those slurs in a friendly or affectionate "insider insult" way. They just really do hate Arabs in general, and the fact that they are Arabs has just never really sunk in.
236: I'm slowly coming to feel that way about American white people. Present company excepted, of course.
Buck Sr. really isn't a bad guy. He's just lived a life very, very removed from any PC influence.
238: I've got relatives like that, too (of the "very friendly and kind and just happen to have been raised in a backwards, racist universe" variety), but I probably have just as much that are either crazy or rotten.
I usually just mark people down as "must to avoid" rather than calling them out, but I remember when I was 17 at my summer job grilling hot dogs in a park, and one day the landscape crew was sitting at the picnic table where I was smoking, and one guy was going on and on and I wasn't really listening, but then I heard him say "blah, blah junglebunnies" and I said,"What's a junglebunny?" because I had never heard of such a bunny, and he got all huffy and said "you, know, a spearchucker" and I said "spearchucker?" because I had never heard of such a sport, and didn't see how a bunny could chuck a spear, and he got all huffy and left the table and the other guy said, "I really think it's cool how you called him out," and I said, "But what is a jungle bunny?"
You can consider this a blonde joke.
I missed yesterday's Groening reference, so let me try to atone by saying:
"Stupid like a Fox!"
See, I think the "they're beyond hope, so I won't call them out" cop-out is just that -- a lame, cowardly cop-out. If someone says something that offends you, and you don't call them out on it, then you're a ninny.
My wife was training her replacement for her job at Prestigious Ivy League University, and they got to talking about how they're both Red Sox fans, and the replacement started talking about how much she hates Derek Jeter (which is right and true) because "he's just a little faggot."
My wife, rightly, shook her head and told her firmly, "That is not acceptable."
Reading some of the earlier comments, I understand that calling someone "racist" or calling their comments "offensive" can put them on the defensive. Maybe this is a time for that cliched touchy-feely technique, the "I" statement.
"I find what you just said offensive." Or, even better, "I'm offended by that."
I don't understand how B and LizardBreath don'ts see that calling someone a racist isn't often used to shut down discussion and take control of a conversation. You say that smeone's statement or practice is racist, and people will get defensive, yes, but there's more than that.
In semi-PC places, it's also an effective way to get people to shut up, because it's a cardinal sin. I can't really say that X is a sensible police practice, because I will be told hat 'm racist or sexist. When thoughtful people say these things, there might be a productive discussion, but too often, it just means that the real discussion happens elsewhere.
It's not exactly parallel, but have you ever participated in a discussion with someone who's been trained in leading discussions and dialogues? I'm sure that some of these facilitator typed are very good--I''ve even met one. Once--but all too often those techniques are used to manipulate a discussion.
People are told to say, "I hear you," but usually that feels like a technique culled from a set of dialogue management flashcards. Usually when people say that they aren't listening at all. The effect of that is that the conversation shuts down, at least the official one does. The real discussion occurs via underground channels in back corridor chats.
I think that when people who are not of the hard-racist type get told that they're being racist, they just keep those thoughts to themselves and air them at home. B's just going to get on my case, so I won't say Z in front of her. That sort of shaming is appropriate if your goalis to make it socially unacceptable to say the most egregious things, especially if everyone does it, but it won't change hearts and minds.
If I tell a KLan member to shut up, then other people watching may change their views, but he may be a hopeless case. The goal there is to make other people see that the racist's behavior is unacceptable and will make them social pariahs if they engage in it..If I want to get someone I know to reconsider his statements, calling them racist is unlikely to do much good.
I don't understand how B and LizardBreath don'ts see that calling someone a racist isn't often used to shut down discussion and take control of a conversation.
Erm, I don't think I've said that it can't be -- I had a fellow associate once get huffy at me because she thought the manner in which I said I didn't think Seinfeld was all that funny was anti-Semitic, and I certainly thought her intent was to push me around. I just think that it behooves people to grow a spine about it -- having someone say that you've said something racist, even if your intent was good, even if they're really offbase, and even if they're being malicious, isn't going to kill you.
243: I think I acknowledged once or twice that there are indeed people who are leftier-than-thou (i.e., who use accusations of prejudice to shut down discussion and/or annoy), and that they are assholes.
having someone say that you've said something racist, even if your intent was good, even if they're really offbase, and even if they're being malicious, isn't going to kill you.
We're saying as many as nine people out of ten will resent it deeply, with consequences that may be dire in the political aggragate. I hear people saying you're too attached to this kind of truth-telling to acknowledge that this might usually be counter-productive.
The guy who called Muslims 'towelheads'.
Mickey Kaus has taught me this is not bad because it is not an ethnic slur.
I think I just fell a little bit in love with you, sj.
There are two separate issues here, though -- how and when do you call someone out, and how do you respond when called out. On the first, I'm fine with being gentle and tactful about it, so long as you aren't silently tolerating anything really problematic -- everything works better if you aren't an asshole about it. On the second, though, I do think that people who feel justified to fervently resent any impugning of their non-racist/sexist credentials are being silly and wrong. It's not an insult that will kill you; if someone calls you a racist, and you think they're wrong, you have the option of sticking to your guns -- what, the PC police are going to come lock you up?; and if you're an American who grew up in the same society I did, it's fairly likely that you do, at least occasionally, say things that you oughtn't to in this regard, and you'd benefit from having your attention drawn to them.
I think the people who get deeply offended and all closed-off about it are the ones who are "overly sensitive" like they always accuse the offended parties of being. People have told me that I've said something that is/could be construed as racist on several occasions and my response has been either 1) oh, yeah, it kinda is, or 2) really? I don't think so, and then we have a discussion about it.
Actually, I just called someone out on having said something vaguely anti-Semitic yesterday, a young British lad who is going to New York next week, and I was like "dude, that's kind of offensive." He's like "No, I didn't mean any harm, I have loads of friends who are Jews." I told him that that didn't matter, people might construe it as offensive, and it doesn't matter what you actually meant, and he better be careful working in the NY office not to make an ass of himself, and better to err on the side of caution. He was like "ok." See? Not that hard.
We're saying as many as nine people out of ten will resent it deeply, with consequences that may be dire in the political aggragate. I hear people saying you're too attached to this kind of truth-telling to acknowledge that this might usually be counter-productive.
I think I reject all of the premises here. Being told you've said something racist might make you feel resentful, but boo-fucking-hoo. You deserve to feel bad. (Obviously, if what you've said isn't objectively racist and/or your interlocutor is, as B puts it, leftier-than-thou, then you shouldn't feel bad and, chances are, you won't.)
It is really true that pointing out racism/sexist language has negative political consequences for liberals? If a liberal politician went around calling people out on their biases, I can see how that person might suffer politically, largely because they'd be a huge pain in the ass. (See above, re: leftier-than-thou.) But I'm not receptive to the argument that we should keep our mouths shut because we might make the Republicans feel bad.
And finally, I don't think that I believe in calling out racism simply because I'm attached to truth-telling, but rather because I think there's a greater societal harm in allowing this kind of thing to go on unchallenged.
. On the second, though, I do think that people who feel justified to fervently resent any impugning of their non-racist/sexist credentials are being silly and wrong. It's not an insult that will kill you; if someone calls you a racist, and you think they're wrong, you have the option of sticking to your guns
I couldn't disagree more. And, were I Jewish and sanctioned by the Please-Don't-Help-Anymore Committee*, I'd have beaten the teeth out of the fellow associate you mentioned above.
(*Teo, feel free to correct to actual committee names.)
251: Do you want to talk about your disagreement in more detail (i.e., you've been abusively called out on imaginary racism, and we're all underestimating how bad it is, or what)?
Nobody is saying people are justified in resenting it, or that in some abstract sense people won't benefit by "having their attention drawn to it." We are saying that that is how people will most often react when "called out,"
certainly by people with whom they have no urgent need to remain cordial. The circle of people whom we might influence by handling ourselves properly is much wider than the circle who have to get along with us.
See 242. I don't think that pointing out offensive language or behavior is incompatible with "handling ourselves properly." One can be cordial and polite even when pointing out another's error.
That seems to leave as options (1) never comment on racism other than from a close friend, which seems wrong and I doubt that you're advocating it, or (2) be tactful about bringing it up; you're not going to influence anyone by being a jerk about it. I'm completely on board with (2) -- I'm not claiming that racism isn't an inflammatory topic, just that its inflammatory nature doesn't justify keeping your mouth shut about it.
252: No, I'm probably on the over-careful side about these matters IRL. To the extent I worry about these things too much, that's probably good (at least to the extent we're talking about self-policing).
I don't really have a well-worked out theory about this, but I think it's actively harmful to make stronger claims about this stuff than can be justified. It makes people more suspicious of claims about racism, and that's bad. As I think I mentioned in a previous discussion about sexism, I'm often sympathetic to claims that something is sexist without much trusting the explanation of why something is sexist. So, my response is dependent on some unknown reconciliation of my own sense of "sexism," and my trust that the person making the claim is not a nutter. To the extent that the latter sense is based on my understanding that charges of sexism are not usually deployed without merit, people who make charges that are not obviously sexist to me and that make me more generally distrustful of the use of the term in my larger society make it less likely that I'll respond sympathetically to those charges later on.
A couple of days ago, Yglesias wrote a nice piece about the way in which discussions on the right about justifying genocide were really attempts to broaden the boundary of the acceptable and therefore make torture, etc. seem well inside those boundaries. I think charges of racism that are bizarre are, in some way, the functional opposite of that phenomenon. People so charged draw the always nebulous boundaries inward, and are less likely in the future to treat as serious some set of racism charges. I'm lucky to live in a world in which there really isn't a lot of anti-semitism. But it exists, and as long as we're openly involved in the Middle East, I worry that it will increase. So people may soon need to call others on anti-semitism soon in ways they wouldn't in the past, and I'd like the force of that word not to be degraded.
In certain venues thoroughly saturated with PC, it's possible to make a self-aggrandizing career of grievance-collecting supposedly on the behalf of one's people. Usually these are mostly-white, all-middle-class, youngish liberal-arts-type venues.
I agree that this is a not-good thing, and if this dynamic is big within the Democratic party, that's a very bad thing. The reason I'm poo-pooing is that I doubt the scope of the problem. In my experience it's been a very restricted one.
Mitt Romney just got in trouble (as did Tony Snow recently) for using the word "tarbaby" in reference to the Big Dig. When Snow unleashed the fucking fury, I was shocked. Hell, I'd used the term on my blog in reference to Iraq. It never once occurred to me that there were any racist overtones to it, because I'd never heard it used to mean anything except an unpleasant situation you can't extricate yourself from, and for which you only have yourself to blame for being in. I'd certainly never heard anybody use it in reference to an actual person.
I can see (now) how it could be construed as offensive, given the history, but in each of the cases above, there clearly wasn't the slightest racist intent, since it wasn't being used to refer to anything remotely relating to African-Americans or even any particular stereotypes applied broadly. It's just like saying that somebody is begging not to be thrown in that briar patch.
And while I might be more judicious in using the word, I have to admit that my main reaction still is, "Oh please - as much actual racism as exists in the world, you think this is worth getting exercised over? Seriously?"
IDP, I really think that we *are* acknowledging that people get offended by this stuff; after all, it makes no sense to say "they shouldn't" unless one realizes that, in fact, they do.
I think it's actively harmful to make stronger claims about this stuff than can be justified. It makes people more suspicious of claims about racism, and that's bad.
Okay. But otoh, I agree with mrh that I don't think that I believe in calling out racism simply because I'm attached to truth-telling, but rather because I think there's a greater societal harm in allowing this kind of thing to go on unchallenged. (Though I think I'm putting a moratorium on the phrase "call out." Use a different word, people. Point out? Identify? Ask about? Criticize?) Like the bit upthread with the real estate agent: one of the reasons that kind of tacit redlining still goes on, despite its illegality, is that people tacitly allow it. The realtor is using a code to let me know that, as a fellow white person, she understands which neighborhoods I want to live in. If her clients don't point out the problem with that code, then (assuming most of them do end up buying in the neighborhoods she steers them to), she's implicitly getting the message that in fact that's what they want her to do. And if I'm offended and just find another agent, she doesn't know why I'm doing that. Only if enough (white) potential clients respond to that kind of comment does she realize that the risk of losing business through it counterbalances the presumptioin that it gains her business.
(I'm assuming that real estate agents don't let their non-white clients know that they're doing this stuff, or at least not in the same way--obviously the presumption is that it's the brown folks who might sue over it.)
259: I agree with that, on principle and as you've expressed and illustrated it.
And, because slol will expect it of me: Exit, Voice, and Loyalty
258: Well, but what if you were black? I mean, okay, you don't know what the phrase's history is, and you don't think about it much; but to people who do, it's startling and off-putting. Even if you want to argue that people shouldn't (say) lose their jobs over this kind of thing, surely they ought to be made aware that they just gave X percent of their listeners a very uncomfortable feeling in the pits of their stomachs.
FWIW, the tarbaby thing made *me* feel uncomfortable. Just as it makes me feel uncomfortable when people toss around the n-word or other racial slurs, jokingly or no. It's fine if (the hypothetical) you want to make the point that that discomfort is silly or whatever, or that you think your right to use X language trumps my discomfort (e.g. my argument about profanity); but the point is, given that we do by and large think that racism is objectionable, surely people are doing you a favor if they point out a kind of language use that you weren't aware had the potential to discomfit or affront your audience.
We need more black people on this site so I can make more racial jokes. I'm so tired of needling women and whitey.
And, as usual, I'm with Emerson here:
The reason I'm poo-pooing is that I doubt the scope of the problem. In my experience it's been a very restricted one.
I think PC bullying would be a big problem if it were particularly common, but I just don't see all that much of it. ('Tar baby' is funny, because the metaphor isn't racist at all -- the key quality of 'tar' is that it's sticky, not that it's black. But the source material is way, way racist in that godawful happy-darky way, so you can't really appeal to the original text to defend the metaphor as non-racist.)
when people toss around the n-word or other racial slurs, jokingly or no
But this isn't being used as a racial slur, either seriously or jokingly. It isn't referring to race at all. It isn't even referring to people. At some point, a complete and utter lack of racial intent has to win out over a historical usage that hasn't been common for half a century. Particularly given that the tarbaby is a ccmmon figure in African folklore, used to trap a person.
261 Cont.: Which, I think, gets us back to the party affiliation issue. The argument by the pc folks is that unconscious racism or lack of awareness of the race (or class) coding in certain political positions--e.g., local funding for schools--excludes and potentially alienates entire sections of the voting population (quite apart from the more important issue of it actually failing to recognize the needs of entire sections of the citizenry).
The argument by the anti-pc folks, of course, is that pointing this out potentially alienates (though it does not exclude) entire sections of the voting population, ranging from unreconstructed racists to thoroughly decent people who get offended by having things they've always taken for granted criticized as racist.
My point is that worrying about the latter implicitly asserts that it is more important than the former. Which may be true, from a strategy point of view (although I'm really not sure: what would happen if groups whose exclusion tends to keep them away from the polls really had their issues/needs addressed?) But it does kind of offend me from a moral point of view, because I don't think that acknowledging racism actually *does* exclude or discriminate against white people, and certainly not in the same way that failing to recognize/acknowledge it perpetuates de facto exclusion or discrimination against people of color. (Substitute women, poor people, immigrants, minimum wage workers, or what have you.)
Silvana: did you get my joke upthread? page search your name.
so you can't really appeal to the original text
Except the original text predates America and originates in Africa, so you can.
264: Eventually the lack of racist meaning *will* win out. But half a century isn't that long: if you had grown up being called tar baby or jigaboo or pickaninny or whatever, you would still flinch or be angered if you heard a politician say the phrase unwittingly. I don't see why that's so hard to imagine or empathize with.
I think in American English, the Joel Chandler Harris version is the source document, despite the fact that he was retelling stories that largely went back to Africa. I'd doubt that any significant number of Americans are familiar with the 'tar baby' concept from a source that doesn't trace back to Harris. And Harris was pretty awful.
No, IDP, I did not see that, but I now have, and appreciate it greatly.
This whole travelling thing is really interfering with my qualifying for a Kotsko fellowship, I can only read like a tenth of the comments now.
This reminds me of the flap about niggardly a few years ago. On the one hand, pathetically illiterate. On the other hand, I realized I had never used the word myself, precisely because I could hear its near-resemblance.
That B, such a feisty papist.
Anyway. I'm going to go do some work for this afternoon, but I think Ogged's 262 (even though he's oppressing me with it) is right. Context matters. Jew jokes here are fine, because there are enough Jews on the site that we *know* the jokes aren't serious. OTOH, if the Jews on the site didn't themselves make such jokes, I don't think the non-Jews would do it. I wouldn't.
B., what's the problem with "call out"? Do you think it's overused, or just inaccurate?
I guess it strikes me as analagous to protesting somebody referring to "a chink in his armor."
Overstated, maybe? It implies hauling someone onto the carpet and chewing them out, which certainly, e.g., isn't what I did to my father-in-law.
This reminds me of the flap about niggardly a few years ago.
That flap also occurred in a class I took as a sophomore in college. The poor guy that unwittingly used the term was a visiting professor from some Eastern European country or other and didn't speak English as his first language.
Though I think I'm putting a moratorium on the phrase "call out." Use a different word, people. Point out? Identify? Ask about? Criticize?
Agreed; sorry about that.
Some points, trying to catch up.
1. On people saying offensive stuff. My general rule is, I would rather hear the offensive stuff, because it lets you know how people really think. If you succeed in getting racists to be polite, they're still racists. Witness the coded rhetoric around all kinds of racially charged issues (immigration, welfare [back when there was some], etc.). I don't think hiding racism is actually progress. (I recognize this is a very 1960s position, and contributes to Weiner's thesis that I'm a hippie. Sue me.)
2. On calling people out. I've only twice called people on saying offensive stuff, in a long career of hearing offensive stuff, and both times I regretted it. And the truth is, I probably wouldn't have done it in either case if I hadn't already quite disliked the people involved.
I've now decided that the only time I really will try to stop people saying horrid things is when my children are around. I don't want them imbibing that stuff and learning, even implicitly, that it's acceptable. Yet. But when they're older, they'll have to; and I'll let them read Huckleberry Finn and Just So Stories and answer their questions.
3. On us all being racist. I come from an ethnically mixed background myself, and the only real ethnic prejudices I am sure I myself feel are against either half of my family tree. And those are so well-informed I'm reasonably sure they're not even prejudices.
a chink in his armor
The phrase that always makes me think, "Racist---no, wait...." is "a nip in the air". Because really, people very rarely talk that way about Japanese pilots.
280, 283: I fall back on the canon.
281(2): By all means pick your battles, but exit is dumb, in the sense of unintelligible; voice must complement it.
You see ladies? You too can convince me by better arguments.
I have had good luck with, said laconically like the plain facts they are:
"hmmm that's going to sound a lot less funny when read out at your dismissal hearing"
or depending on context
"y'know, one day you're going to run into someone who doesn't understand irony and they will fill your fucking face in".
Of course, I still regard it as my right, when anyone of remotely Irish extraction complains about anything at all in my presence, to say "yes, four hundred years of oppression and now this", which I still regard as the very essence of comedy. They have no sense of humour, the bloody Irish, not when the joke is on them.
We really do share the same reference points. Want to run a graduate seminar together?
Call out
I've always assoicated it with challenges to duel. It is very serious. It has changed (as terms do) to a more generic challenge. This probably tracks with the lamentable decline in duels. But, too much reading of Dumas, etc. at too young an age has set the meaning and tone of that phrase for me.
Casting the issue as whether the issue is the (presumably) white person's right not to be offended versus the right to end racism/sexism begs the question, for surely part of what is at issue is whether the behavior in question is offensive.
And my worry is something like this. Remember the whole 'eye babies' thing that we all laughed at because it was so ridiculous to think of chastity as including not looking at a classmate? Clearly, if someone from that university insisted I wasn't properly chaste, my response would not be to repent in sackcloth and ashes, but to conclude they were obviously poor judges of chastity if looking at someone constituted a violation that was just as serious as having sex.
And I think the same sort of principle applies here. If a guy were to denounce a prof over using the word 'niggardly', asserting the prof was 'racist', the next time the guy asked me to make myself appropriately reverent towards the problem of racism, I'd have to wonder if he meant something serious or he just hadn't been able to read his dictionary again.
My conclusion is that 'racist' loses its meaning if applied too broadly. I think most words are like that. And y'know, it doesn't matter in everyday conversation whether I criticize someone for a racist joke or not; I'm probably not going to change his opinion, just drive it underground.
But I do think it's a problem if a movement -- here, liberalism -- gets tarred with an inability to distinguish between real problems (harassment, unfair hiring practices, corrupt real estate agents) and honest mistakes or, on the grand scheme of things, pretty minor ('niggardly', breast cancer ribbons are pink!, eyebabies).
It's probably not our fault that liberalism got painted wrongly, but it's happened.
to say "yes, four hundred years of oppression and now this", which I still regard as the very essence of comedy.
I now plan to say this to my mother sometime, when she's not holding anything heavy to hit me with.
a movement -- here, liberalism -- gets tarred
Racist.
the tarbaby thing made *me* feel uncomfortable. Just as it makes me feel uncomfortable when people toss around the n-word or other racial slurs, jokingly or no.
This just kills me, and it's why I worry about overuse. There are, in fact, gradations between use of the n-word and use of the phrase "tar-baby" in connection with the Big Dig. The former should get you decked (though, in the circles it's used, won't), the latter might get you a suspicious look. That we would pair the two together here (or connect the realtor's reference to "those people" with LB's comment that Seinfeld isn't funny) is precisely why people get put off at others criticizing (or whatever word we're using) racism.
dsquared has minimized the oprression of my ancestors. 400 years?! Ha. So typical for someone from the big island. Help, help, I'm being oppressed.
292: I said 'tarred', not 'tarbabied', ya flame-haired cracker.
294: True enough -- it's more than 800 years since the filthy Saxons invaded. (Of course, given that dsquared's people were being simultaneously oppressed, I don't know that we can win this one.)
I said 'tarred'
It isn't nice to make fun of the mentally challenged, Cala. Plus, you spelled it wrong.
The phrase that always makes me think, "Racist---no, wait...." is "a nip in the air".
Once when teaching a section for a classicist from Switzerland, I was asked by some undergrads to request that he stop referring to all of the "Greek booty" the Romans took.
I just hurt myself trying not to yelp with laughter at 298.
I don't know that we can win this one.
We have Shane MacGowan.
"Greek booty" should be "Greek boo-tayyyy"
"Greek booty" should be "Greek boo-tayyyy"
With a Swiss accent, mind. If I remember correctly, one of the students eventually wrote on the class evaluation form that he should stop saying it. I'm not sure if even then he understood.
Greek booty" should be "Greek boo-tayyyy
"But Dr. Klein, weren't the Sabines Latins?
Might have messed him up even more.
I'm a bit late to this party, but it might be worth noting that my Dublin-born wife occasionally refers to rude or thoughtless behavior or simple unreliability as being "very Irish."
I blame her Proddy father.
WaPo reviewed a Pogues show last Spring. Shane is not a picture of health. Pretty sad review (below the one for Queen).
I've actually had a pretty weird experience with PC. I was on the defensive side of this one. What do people think about this instance?
293: I didn't say the two words were equally offensive; I said that I, personally, feel uncomfortable when both are used in my presence. I agree with you that the one is forbidden and the other less so--precisely because people don't necessarily realize what they're saying. But because I *do* have that association, it makes me uncomfortable.
I mean, you're right: people's failure to understand that saying "those things make me feel uncomfy" is not the same as saying "those things are equally objectionable" is part of why people dismiss it when others point out minor or unintentional slurs. And okay, I take the point that this is something to keep in mind. But that's not the same as saying that the folks who point stuff out aren't themselves aware of the distinctions; I think rather it's that the subject is touchy and therefore auditors jump into defensive positions and conflate things inaccurately.
306: What was weird about it? Someone pointed out that the man/girl opposition was a little off, and you explained what you were thinking, and then agreed that it was a little off.
308: Well, two things. First, that he would make the accusation that my language was actually real evidence of anything about my attitude toward women, which is unjustifiable. Second, that he stuck around after my somewhat rude (and I think, justified) dismissal.
306: Yes, of course "man" v. "girl" is sexist. It is also true that this is the way we usually use the language, so arguably you aren't yourself being especially sexist in doing that; but yeah, I'd say that implicit in any kind of feminist awareness is recognizing that kind of thing.
As to the original question, my answer is that this is just a situation in which, sorry, men get the shitty end of the stick. You can't compel a woman to have an abortion, because she's the one whose body carries the baby (which is where she gets the shitty end of the stick, including health risks, childbirth, death from childbirth, historically speaking, and so on). And if she doesn't, and has the kid, she has two options: give it up for adoption, or keep it. If she gives it up for adoption, legally she's required to at least try to get in touch with you (and of course you can, if you wish, ask for custody in that case). If she doesn't, then there's a child that needs supporting. Given that we don't, as a society, think it is a public responsibility to financially support children whose parent(s) are poor, we've decided it's the responsibility of the parents. As the biological parent, that's you. Saying that you shouldn't have to do that because you didn't choose to become a parent is neither here nor there: the woman didn't choose to become a parent either. She just chose not to take steps to reverse the situation once it had gotten started. And since the practical result of giving you the right to only become a parent when you choose to do so would be to impose a greater responsibility on women, that would be inequitable.
As you said in the post, of course, the practical reality is that most of the time it is women who get stuck with the disadvantages of unplanned parenting. To some extent, the role of the law w/r/t child support is to try to equalize this burden. If people have a problem with that, then the answer isn't to allow men to default into not-parenting-without-explicit-consent, but to argue that supporting children is a public responsibility.
Huh. I actually missed your "fuck you" on the first reading. Seriously, I think he came into it hostile (I do dislike that use of 'revealing') and consciously so, which is probably why he took your 'fuck you' in stride. On the other hand, I think the point he was making was a fair one, and one worth making.
So, he was a bit of a jerk about it, but the net result of the interaction seems more positive than negative.
309: I don't see him impugning your attitude towards women; I see him impugning your credentials as a feminist. Not the same thing.
Admittedly, his tone is snotty. That whole "he should be arrested!" thing is just obnoxious. Just make your point, dude, you don't have to play the faux-naive like you didn't understand what was being said.
310: As to the original question, a more recent thread at Alas sees my point of view fairly well represented by various commenters. As to the man/girl distinction, I agree.
As to your comments, I would guess my main point of contention would be with:
"And since the practical result of giving you the right to only become a parent when you choose to do so would be to impose a greater responsibility on women, that would be inequitable."
I think men and women are already in an inherently asymmetric position, and it seems to me like your argument is more about symmetry than it is about equality--I think that your "that would be inequitable" needs lots more support.
"I don't see him impugning your attitude towards women; I see him impugning your credentials as a feminist."
In his later comments, yes. But not in his first.
"Seriously, I think he came into it hostile (I do dislike that use of 'revealing') and consciously so, which is probably why he took your 'fuck you' in stride."
That's probably right. But it surprises me that the hostility was conscious, and not, as it seemed, rash. Are overly PC people usually that thick-skinned?
"but the net result of the interaction seems more positive than negative."
Agreed.
Bitch, unfortunately, I don't have time to continue the discussion about child support.
I don't have time to continue the discussion
But I will point out this comment.
Actually, come to think of it, I bet I can tell you what went on there. I don't 'know' Jake Squid, but I've seen him in Ampersand's comments, and he's a reasonably hard-line feminist, and one used to arguing with the anti-feminists that show up there. While I disagree with your position on 'choice for men', there's nothing inherently offensive about it but it tends to show up coming from anti-feminists. I'll bet you that JS, not knowing you, looked at your post and at the man/girl phrasing, and thought 'anti-feminist asshole', and so came off in a very hostile fashion. When you responded in a way that wouldn't make much sense from an avowed anti-feminist, he took your offense at his tone as justified, and went on with the conversation.
That sounds quite plausible. Thanks.
313: Sure, when it comes to childbirth, men and women are in an inherently unequal position. I'm quite willing to acknowledge that fact, and that it gives men some advantages, and that it gives women other, different advantages. But those things aree beyond the power of the law to change. What *is* in the power of the law is the ability to equalize the burden of parenting, given biological reality, rather than exacerbating inequality.
I mean, basically the point of the "men shouldn't have to pay child support" argument is that men, unlike women, shouldn't have to be burdened with children unless they make a conscious choice to do so. It rests on the idea that the ideal human being is a brain without a body, pure reason. This is a belief that is inherently unjust to women (I would argue--other feminists would not) inasmuch as the fact of childbirth and reproduction is something that we cannot simply ignore. It's very much part of what it means to be human, and any sense of human rights and responsibilities that doesn't take it into account is fundamentally flawed.
I'll add to LB's 315 (and diss Amp at the same time) by saying that a lot of "feminist" men love to play the one-upmanship game. I'd put such people pretty firmly in the "leftier-than-thou" camp.
In other words, he has a point, but that doesn't mean he isn't also being an ass about it.
"I mean, basically the point of the "men shouldn't have to pay child support" argument is that men, unlike women, shouldn't have to be burdened with children unless they make a conscious choice to do so. "
Well, that's one position anyway, and one I don't necessarily agree with. (I'd approach it warily and extremely carefully.) But currently, there isn't even an enforcable way for a man to form a written, consensual, pre-sex agreement with his partner that he will not be responsible for child support for any resulting children. Should people not be free to form these agreements?
"What *is* in the power of the law is the ability to equalize the burden of parenting"
I agree. I fully support equality in this situation. But equality is not always symmetry. What constitutes equality in a very asymmetrical situation (and this is an extremely asymmetrical situation) is a really tricky question.
Among the blogs I read, Alas seems to be lefter-than-thou central.
Among the blogs I read, Alas seems to be lefter-than-thou central.
That's why it's no longer among the blogs I read.
It's not on my blogroll, but for some reason I keep going back there. I've been trying to wean myself.
But currently, there isn't even an enforcable way for a man to form a written, consensual, pre-sex agreement with his partner that he will not be responsible for child support for any resulting children. Should people not be free to form these agreements?
If they can get the child's signature, yes. Since they can't, no. The child has a right to be supported by both his parents. You can't sign that right away from him/her ahead of time (adoption makes this less clear but the principle is crystal).
To be honest, anyone writing a whole load about "what about men? this is all unfair on men?" is going to have their feminist credentials questioned; I am surprised at the surprise.
Oh, I'm not surprised that this would lead people to question whether I'm a good feminist. In fact, it's a justified response. (I think the answer is that I can still be a good feminist, but of course I would say that, eh?)
"If they can get the child's signature, yes."
I think that the child should not have a universal right to support from both of its biological parents. I think that the child should have a universal right to support from at least one person.
In fact, the way the laws currently work, it’s not apparent that such a right is recognized. If the child has a universal right to support from both biological parents, how is adoption possible? Why are safe haven laws permissible? I would say that the law *doesn't* recognize such a right, and that child support is justified legally using other rationales. (Or if not, that that rationale is inconsistent. And is a bad principle regardless.)
pdf- Combine what dsquared said with the part of B's 310 where she said, "Given that we don't, as a society, think it is a public responsibility to financially support children whose parent(s) are poor, we've decided it's the responsibility of the parents." That is, I take it that children (probably everyone has, but it's more complex) have a right to support, not to support from source x. I suppose given this, I should accept that consenting adults, absent particular inequities in their relationship which could be specified by statute, could sign an agreement that commits both of them to make sure that their child gets level of monetary support x but one of them only has to contribute if the other is unable to give the child that amount, and then has to make up any shortfall.
"That is, I take it that children (probably everyone has, but it's more complex) have a right to support, not to support from source x."
I said as much with "I think that the child should have a universal right to support from at least one person." I probably should have said "or the state". Anyway, I'm open to the argument that, given the realities involved, that making the biological parents responsible is the best practical solution, but I would still strongly object to saying that the child has a right to that particular form of support.
there isn't even an enforcable way for a man to form a written, consensual, pre-sex agreement with his partner that he will not be responsible for child support for any resulting children. Should people not be free to form these agreements?
Christ, if he's that unwilling, he should freeze his sperm and get a vasectomy. But no problem, because if he's going to be carrying these contracts to the bar with him, he is never going to get laid, except by people too drunk to consent to anything.
You don't think any sensible girl would sleep with a guy who said he's unwilling to support a child, but who would support the girl medically and be very careful with birth control? And you think it's the guy that would have trouble getting laid?
326: Sure, it would be offputting in a casual sex situation, but no more than asking about STDs. I think wanting to have such a written contract would be the social equivalent of wanting to see STD test results before having sex. Yeah, it's a little paranoid, but not unreasonable. And many people are going to be offput by it, but men who want to have that kind of assurance are just going to have to be willing to find the women that won't be offput that much. (And probably lay off the casual sex.)
What's the overriding reason that we as a society should create a legal framework to increase the risk of a child being unable to receive the minimum level of support that the same society has decided a child needs?
I have to say that I can't see anyone entering into a pre-sex contract of that type, and that I agree with the implicit answer to w/d's question in 329.
329: It's not just.
Yes, the child's welfare is a concern. And I'm willing to admit that, especially in America, it might be an overriding concern. I don't necessarily support any changes like this in the current political situation. But it's not just.
Well, why should this fellow depend on a contract? Why doesn't he bank his sperm and get a vasectomy? An abortion is not entirely without risk of infection and sterility, you know. If he wants sex without the possibility of a child, let him be the one to take the risk of permanent childlessness.
And you think it's the guy that would have trouble getting laid?
Yes. I think he would seem like a controlling freak.
This whole child welfare issue would become much less complex if we could just go ahead and implement my plan, of turning over all babies at birth to Infant Welfare Centers, where they would stay, cared for by the state, until they were ready to move to the Toddler Education Ceners and subsequently the Child Development Centers.
333: Hypothetically, I could support such a policy.
332: I really don't understand why such a guy would creep you out so much. I don't see how it has anything to do with being controlling. Paranoid? Maybe. (I know I wouldn't go that far myself.)
have to say that I can't see anyone entering into a pre-sex contract of that type
Given the panoply of weirdness in the world, of course there are people who would. Though the wife didn't sign in this case, but it's orders of magnitude more egregious.
Pdf- There's fair notice of what the default rule is, the ability to use birth control, the ability to get a vasectomy, and the risky ability to use the birth control method that Pops claims didn't exist in his day.
And it really seems like a bad situation for a contract. In the casual sex setting, no one's going to sign them -- look at the reaction the Antioch code got to asking people to explictly agree to have sex at all. And in a relationship context, the potential for duress, fraudulent inducement, or subsequent modification seems to swallow up the very, very few cases where such a contract might not be a bad idea.
LB once described the situation as follows: there are two people and three roles. Gestator, mother, father. One of the people has two of those roles, gestator and mothers, sometimes, probably usually both at once. But her ability to terminate the pregnancy doesn't stem from her ability to reject the role of being a mother, but from her role as gestator of the pregnancy, with all its attendant health concerns and risks. The father can't be a gestator, so obviously, the abortion decision can't be his.
Once the kid's born, both the mother and the father have certain responsibilities to the child that neither of them can get out of with pursuing certain legal courses, like adoption or complicated custody arrangements. And that's true for the woman, too; as a mother, she can't just walk away from the child. The situation is perfectly equitable with respect to mother-father roles. It's just that for nine months, there's a third role floating around.
What complicates the matter is that while the gestator role gives the woman the right to terminate the pregnancy, it's often the mother role (or the 'i am so not ready for this') that seemingly drives the decision. But it isn't, I think, enough to collapse the distinction.
Hey, I'd forgotten I'd made that argument here. I was thinking about hauling it out for this discussion, but you've just saved me a lot of typing.
I really don't understand why such a guy would creep you out so much.
hmm. I suppose it's because a casual sexual encounter is usually undertaken in some spirit of spontaneity, and being presented with a contract would undermine that spirit. A person so concerned with eliminating the smallest chance of accident (and I am assuming the use of a condom) would seem to me to be better suited to an arranged marriage than a one night stand.
You haven't answered my question about the vasectomy, and I'd like to know why that shouldn't be the solution to the dilemma.
I think right now it's sort of an implicit acceptance of risk.
Anyone out there not aware that babies are a hazard of sex? Anyone out there not aware that he can't force his sexual partner to have an abortion?
Oh, and the guy would creep me out for two reasons:
1) If it's a causal sexual encounter, he is clearly thinking about it too much. Much like if before engaging in a game of frisbee on the quad, I asked my fellow frisbee tossers to sign a contract voiding my liability if I threw it and it hit them in the face. I'd be superduper safe then, but I'd still be an asshole.
2) If we're in a relationship that's presumably loving and caring, he seems somehow less committed if his biggest worry about my pregnancy is not my health, or my options, or how to raise the child, but how he can get out of it.
The answer is that, as Cala says, the default rule is the default rule. As to whether it's a fair default rule: it's hard to argue otherwise, given the structure of society today, broadly. I'm sympathetic to the idea of tying support rights to termination rights, but I find it a hard argument to ultimately support that this is the pressing gendered issue we should be dealing with. There is something unfair about making more fair the world only in ways (or first in ways) that make the broader disparities greater. (This is also one reason why I think anti-affirmative-action arguments, while understandable and naively compelling, are crap.)
341: #1 expresses my feeling about the casual sex/contract scenario exactly.
I believe that EU law has enshrined the right of a child to support from both biological parents. It was strongly enough written that a court recently overruled a written contract made by a sperm donor to a lesbian couple...
The "it's not just" thing is true; but irrelevant. It's not just that if I find myself pregnant, I have to either carry to term or else go stick my feet in the stirrups. It's not just that if I find myself pregnant and the babydaddy is long gone, there's not a whole lot I can do about it. It's not just that even if babydaddy is required to pay child support, the law basically puts the onus on me to enforce that requirement.
As to the rights of the child, like I said: if you want the right to have sex without having to deal with possible consequences (one of which, for women, is putting your feet in the stirrups, paying for the abortion, and dealing with the stigma and potential guilt/worry about the procedure), then take it up with god. For guys, the possible consequences are yes: the woman might get pregnant, carry to term, keep the child, and then you'll have to support it. But that isn't something the *woman* is requiring of you, and therefore it isn't something she can sign away. It's something the *state* is requiring of you, because the state doesn't want to take on your responsibility. If you think that's unfair, then the answer is state support for kids. It isn't to say, "oh well, kids don't have a right to financial support" or "oh well, if a woman chooses to get pregnant, she can deal with it."
That's why I'm saying that the "it's not fair" argument amounts to an argument that men should not have any responsibilities they don't agree to. The reality is that the right to walk away from children is not one the state grants us (and I think that is fair). If you want an adoption, you have to go through legal paperwork, and one requirement is to make a good faith effort to find the father and get his consent. If you want to hand your baby to a safe haven somewhere and walk away, you *might* be able to do that, in states that make it legal, but you still have to seek out the safe haven and make sure you're not violating the law. Women do not have the right to give birth and then leave the baby lying there and walk away. Men do not have the right to cause a pregnancy and then walk away. That's just the way it is. That's why moms always tell you that life isn't fair.
327: I think a lot of women would sign that contract. Because a lot of women are not, in fact, all that sensible: they would buy this argument that it's not fair to expect a guy to support a kid he doesn't want.
But all that shows is that women have internalized the idea that men are autonomous agents who don't have any responsibilities they don't agree to, and that women aren't.
And the justice argument is flawed, because the suggested solution is for one person (the woman) to sign away the rights to support of another (the child). There's no sensible way that I can see to construe her to have the authority to do that.
347: The problem is that the person you're speaking of (the child) doesn't actually exist at the time of the contract, and his or her ultimate existence is contingent on a decision by the woman. So his or her rights, such as they are, are sufficiently contingent on decisions made by the woman that it seems reasonable to give her the right to alienate a subset of those rights (i.e., support).
I don't think that follows. Say I'm standing on a dock, holding a life preserver, and I see someone drowning off the dock. I have no legal obligation to throw them the life preserver -- if there's no one else around to help, they live or die at my whim. Would that give me the right to sign unrelated rights of their away?
My strong intuition in the life preserver case is that the fact that the drowner's continued existence hinges on my actions doesn't give me any capacity to sign away his rights.
Further, do you have the intuition that the mother has the right to sign away other rights of her child, because its existence is contingent on her decisions? Could she sell it into slavery? I think, if you look at it, the only right of the child that you actually believe that the mother is entitled to sign away is its right to support from its father.
Take the life preserver issue first--could you get the drowning guy to trade more or less anything for that life preserver? Yeah. He's definitely willing to let you have his income stream in return for that life preserver. That seems closer to the issue at hand with the fetus.
As for slavery -- you probably could, except for our strong norm against slavery, or a claim that someone would prefer death to slavery (see "Their Eyes Were Watching God," IIRC). Income streams don't seem like the same thing at all to me.
his or her ultimate existence is contingent on a decision by the woman
No. This is the residual and unconscious idea that women somehow get pregnant on purpose. We don't. We can increase the odds of getting pregnant, or decrease them, but it isn't a conscious decision. Not fair to us, but there it is.
Now, what you mean of course is that if the woman doesn't have an abortion, she (presumably) has a baby. But this isn't a decision on her part, either. The fetus could miscarry, or be stillborn, or whatever. It's out of her control. And yes, she can, let us assume, have an abortion (and of course even if it's illegal, she can attempt one--which is one reason why I think that the popular idea that the right to abortion is something the state grants is silly). But having an abortion is a conscious decision: getting pregnant and gestating a child isn't.
Basically, the contract suggestion boils down to saying, "before we have sex, I want you to understand that I acknowledge no responsibility to any potential pregnancy, because after all, you can always undergo a medical procedure in order to maintain my freedom. If you don't want to have a medical procedure in order to protect my freedom, then I'm not giving it up anyway."
How is this not assholish? Basically what you're saying is that you want to use contract law to enforce your right to knock someone up and walk away. Haven't we come far enough that we've decided that guys who do that are skanky jerks?
He's definitely willing to let you have his income stream in return for that life preserver.
But our legal system wouldn't enforce such a contract. And really, really, wouldn't let you impose such a contract on a rescuee who couldn't communicate consent (say he was unconscious and you fished him out.) You're importing the rescuee's consent into the matter, and that's what's absent from the mother-signing-away-the-prospective-child's-rights.
On your second point -- can you come up with anything at all other than the right to support from a father, that you would describe as a 'right' possessed by the child that the mother is entitled to sign away because she had the option to abort and chose not to exercise it? Doesn't have to be slavery -- any right at all. I don't think there is any such right, which suggests to me that you aren't really thinking about the child's rights here.
But having an abortion is a conscious decision: getting pregnant and gestating a child isn't.
B, this is exactly the language people tend to avoid, for obvious (and I think fair) reasons. The kid is only a kid once it pops out. Prior to that, it's a fetus. If she can abort, she can preempt its kid status.
I'm not arguing in favor of the contract. I think there should be a default rule. For a variety of reasons, I'm fine with the default rule as it is. But the pretense that there isn't something symetrically satisfying about alienable childrearing burdens, something that feels fairer is just that--pretense.
But the pretense that there isn't something symetrically satisfying about alienable childrearing burdens, something that feels fairer is just that--pretense.
Who's pretending that it doesn't feel 'fairer'? B. acknowledges that people feel a fairness issue in her 345. The question is whether what feels fair is what is just to the three people involved. (Three people, given that none of this is an issue at all unless a child is born alive.)
Fine, getting pregnant and gestating a fetus until it turns into a baby isn't a conscious decision. Same diff.
And the "if she can abort" thing really overlooks the reality of abortion. It's like saying, "well hey, you can have plastic surgery, so there wouldn't really be anything wrong with a man asking his fiancee to sign a contract stating that if she gets fat, he's no longer married to her." It's offensive to expect women to sign contracts agreeing that they will undergo invasive bodily procedures in order to keep men free and unemcumbered.
Anyway, as I said, I would be all for letting men alienate their parental responsibilities if the state would pick up the tab. From what I've seen, women who get child support checks are in a shitty fucking position, having to maintain decent relationships with the men in order to make sure the men will support their own children, having to be patient when the guy says "I'm a little short this month," having to put up with various kinds of assholish behavior. They shouldn't have to do this shit, but they do, because they get that what's fair to them is less important than what's fair to their children. It's called being an adult.
On your second point -- can you come up with anything at all other than the right to support from a father, that you would describe as a 'right' possessed by the child that the mother is entitled to sign away because she had the option to abort and chose not to exercise it?
But it doesn't have to be abortion. She can, for example, put the kid up for adoption. A man can (and presumably does) alienate the right of the child to his support when he donates sperm to a sperm bank. This alienation doesn't seem like a peculiarly peculiar position to take. I don't myself think of the child as having a natural right to support from its biological parents.
"well hey, you can have plastic surgery, so there wouldn't really be anything wrong with a man asking his fiancee to sign a contract stating that if she gets fat, he's no longer married to her."
I honest to gawd don't have a problem with that contract. If a woman knows that going in, and still marries him...well, she has my sympathy, but not a lot of it. As you say, it's clear evidence that he's an asshole. In general, it's a good idea not to marry assholes.
From what I've seen, women who get child support checks are in a shitty fucking position, having to maintain decent relationships with the men in order to make sure the men will support their own children, having to be patient when the guy says "I'm a little short this month," having to put up with various kinds of assholish behavior.
As I previously said, I'm fine with the default rule as it is now. If it can be made fairer to women, I'm fine with that, too. I'm not fine with trying to change the default rule to allow men to alienate that right. But I don't much buy "be an adult" as an argument.
356: Okay, but you're still stuck on 'right to support from its father' as the only right of the child that the mother is entitled to unilaterally sign away on its behalf -- everything you've brought up relates to that right only. That strongly suggests to me that you really aren't talking about a power of the mother to alienate the child's rights generally -- just this one special one.
On adoption, the bio parents transfer their obligations to adoptive parents acceptable to the state. There's a fair argument that the child isn't losing anything at all. Sperm banks are weird, but Jack just mentioned that the EC believes that they don't abrogate the father's responsibilities. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but it shows that even the strongest form of the argument I'm making isn't all that out there.
She can, for example, put the kid up for adoption.
That's a pretty cavalier response to what is, by all accounts, an incredibly wrenching and difficult decision. It's also one that requires a fair bit of legal wrangling--far more than just "hey, babe, would you sign this contract?" *And* it's not something she can do autonomously: she has to get the father's signature, and if he's not around, she has to demonstrate a good faith effort to find him and obtain the signature. Given that (white) newborns are a valuable commodity, adoption agencies usually do this on her behalf, but that doesn't mean that "just give it up for adoption" is the same thing as "I won't pay child support."
I honest to gawd don't have a problem with that contract.
But you do: you think a man who would expect such a thing is an asshole. That's my point: the idea that men should be able to get women to sign contracts absolving them of parental responsibility is assholish.
(Three people, given that none of this is an issue at all unless a child is born alive.)
Tangential point: this isn't quite true, because reshaping legal rules about the obligations arising from a pregnancy affects the bargaining positions of the man and woman when they sit down to talk about what to do (assuming that happens). That's not relevant to the immediate discussion, but it's an important subtext in some versions of the larger argument.
I feel like no one read my 323, in which I assert that children do *not* have a right to support from both biological parents, but only to support in general, from whatever sort. In fact, I hashed that issue out a lot on the Alas thread, so I'd rather not repeat myself.
361: The thing is, though, that support from only one person is a lot less support than children are entitled to now, and yet many are still under-supported from society's point of view. Why would it be a good thing to reduce their rights to support?
Also, I don't think that the man that would want a contract is necessarily an asshole. If the woman wants a child just as little as the man, and says she would abort any child that were accidentally conceived, then I don't see why promising not to hold the man responsible for any child support in the future should she change her mind would be strange at all. Now, it's true that most women don't take that attitude toward their potential children, and those women wouldn't be a good fit for such a man. But I don't see any assholishness in that.
So maybe all these arguments I've been making only have a very limited applicability.
On unicorn island, maybe. But look, casual sexual encounters don't involve long talks about future aborted children.
Long-term relationships don't involve someone wanting a get-out-of-jail free card if their partner should happen to get pregnant.
This solution isn't going to be workable for 99.9% of relationships, and it certainly won't help the case of 'fairness' because the number of people who would sign it would be nearly nil.
262: That's a contingent argument based on current social realities. The right I'm arguing against is a supposedly a priori. Now, if you want to talk about what the most effective/humane social policy is, I'm there. But I don't think there's any basic human right here involving two (2) biological parents.
262 s/b 362.
364: This wouldn't be very applicable to casual sexual encounters.
Long term relationships where neither partner wants a kid are not very uncommon. It's also not uncommon for women to change their minds about this once they get pregnant. (It's probably less common, but still not uncommon, for men.) I think the contract solution would be applicable to many of these, even those on the US mainland.
promising not to hold the man responsible for any child support in the future should she change her mind would be strange at all
Because *she* is not the one that holds him responsible for child support. I'll repeat: creating a baby, if you are a man, is not the fault of the woman who carries it. This entire idea that child support is somehow something that women hold men responsible for, or that it's up to women to take or give away, is really deeply offensive. Women are not at fault for the reality that sperm is an element in the creation of new people.
It's called child support for a reason.
Also: contract law is a very poor model for human relations of an intimate nature (sex, family).
Re. the right to support. There can be no more fundamental human right than the right to care by one's parents. Without that, you're not going to survive.
368: You're just trying to win me back, aren't you?
369: What the hell? Millions of people in survive without any care at all from their parents. They're called orphans. If you care to, address my 361.
I am addressing that (but I'm not going to read a whole other thread, sorry). Children survive only if someone cares for them in a parental role. Okay, fine: that person doesn't need to be a biological parent, but that just gets back to the point that the parent has to make those arrangements (or, I suppose, die).
370: Nah, that's actually a hobbyhorse of mine. I'm trying to win you back by not mentioning the fact that the weather here in the tropics, while plenty hot and humid, isn't nearly as bad as most of the rest of the country right now.
I could also mention that you're right about child support, but that would just make me look cheap.
Do you know, in all seriousness, I've never been to Hawaii. Isn't that just pathetic? I mean, here, I'm hot and humid and it's fucking ugly. If you're going to have heat and humidity, you might as well have some natural beauty to go along with it.
Keep reminding yourself that you'll soon have ocean again. That's worth a lot.
Yes, it totally is. I have to blog about my trip to the pool this afternoon with PK, and how it made me realize that I am totally a Cali girl and just completely do not belong here.
Partly it's because I've come to really love kayaking, but I can't imagine living any great distance from an ocean. I can imagine not living here, but inland would be pretty bad.
I note in passing that implicit in this contract argument would have to be the view that having an abortion is a minor, trivial medical procedure which ought to have no social colour to it at all and should be no more the occasion for soul-searching and remorse than the removal of a tooth. While I regard this view as eminently defensible, I would like to see the "men's rights" crowd assert it more openly and publicly.
372: OK, I kept thinking about this, and here's what I think. The right to support from at least one source that I agree is a universal right, requires that we have a clearly defined initial state of responsibility, and clearly defined transfer of responsibility whenever that transfer happens. Now, I imagine you would say that at the child's birth, the initial state (universally) is that the mother and father are both jointly responsible.
But I don't think so. While I do agree that, contingently, in 99% of the cases, both have joint responsibility (because of social expectations, moral obligations to not create suffering from the father, and lots of stuff, even in many cases where the father doesn't want that responsibility). But this responsibility isn't universal, and in some cases it is not there. When it is there, it's because the mother has transferred part of her responsibility (in a largely automatic process, in this particular world).
But I can imagine a world much like ours where that transfer process happend much less often, where fathers were not *expected* (or needed) to provide that support; indeed, where it would be seen as outright strange and unheard of for them to do so.
I can also imagine a world where mothers still bore the children, but the usual course of things was for the father to completely raise them from birth, and the mother was out of the picture. But in this world, say one father went missing before the birth of the child. I think in that case the mother would still have the complete responsibility for the child--at the very least, to care for it while she searched for another suitable and willing caretaker. (Though in this hypothetical world the state would probably take it over). Women in this world still start out with the responsibility, and only transfer it to the father around the time of birth.
So I don't think there's any possible world where the mother doesn't start out with complete responsibility, and the ability to transfer that responsibility to willing parties. I think that in our world the process with transferring them to fathers is (rightly) largely automatic, but not universal, and there should be exceptions.
Where on earth do you get the axiom you're starting from, that the mother starts out with complete responsibility and the father has none unless the mother transfers it to him? You characterize it as true in 'any possible world', so you're not deducing it from the possibility of abortion.
That axiom makes everything else you're arguing make sense if you accept it, but I can't begin to imagine any justification for accepting it.
Right, I can imagine a world where human beings are like tigers. they get together and fuck, and then the male disappears. And I can imagine a world where people are like seahorses, and once the eggs are fertilized, the father brings them to maturity in a vat. And I can imagine a world in which people are like praying mantises, where casual sex would carry some really serious risks for males. So what?
Women in this world still start out with the responsibility, and only transfer it to the father around the time of birth.
Total bullshit. 50 percent of the chromosomes, 50 percent of the responsibility.
You still haven't explained why the frozen sperm+vasectomy option is not a solution.
381: Frozen sperm+vasectomy is one solution, but vasectomies aren't 100% effective, and even if they were, we'd still be requiring men to get surgery in a situation where they should have better options (if you agree with me).
380: I get the axiom from my intuition. I justify it using those two thought experiments. I anticipated 381 (but didn't premptively defend against it). If the humans in those two thought experiments are human *enough* to have the same morally relevant characteristics, then conclusions drawn from those possible worlds should be applicable to this world. And I think that in those hypothetical worlds, it's apparent that the rights of the child are as I say. I don't think that the differences in psychology or culture that would make those possible worlds possible are differences that would affect the rights of the child in those situations, so I think that those humans *are* humans, and not seahorses. (But it's definitely a valid criticism.)
382: Oh, I agree, it's a much better option for men if they can require a woman to have surgery.
also, your intuition is wrong. My intuition tells me so.
I get the axiom from my intuition.
Your intuition tells you that women are necessarily responsible for the children they bear, and that men are not necessarily responsible for the children they father.
Look, I won't hold it against you, but if that's your starting point, I can't see any reason at all to talk to you about this stuff, or listen to a thing you say about it.
383: That's a strawman. I've never advocated ever forcing women to have surgery, and in fact I think it's repugnant.
385: Well, keep in mind that I belive that all moral feelings come from intuition, so I wouldn't answer any differently if you asked me why I believe murder is wrong. (In fact, I believe that no matter what you say, your belief, just like mine, comes from your intuition, and that any arguments you make are rationalizations.) But just because the belief is an intuition doesn't mean that I can't be convinced it's wrong, if it's shown to be inconsistent with my other, stronger intuitions, which we most likely share, as all humans do. (And this particular intuition is a pretty weak one.)
No, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with reasoning from your moral intuitions. I'm saying that that particular intuition strikes me as awfully, but awfully, screwed up.
383: That's a strawman. I've never advocated ever forcing women to have surgery, and in fact I think it's repugnant.
Uh huh. But you're saying that for the man, a better option than vasectomy is a contract that requires the woman to choose between abortion and sole responsibility for the child.
Yeah, I'd say it's win/win for him.
Show me why the following sets of choices aren't exactly parallel: He can have a vasectomy, or he can support the child. She can have an abortion or she can support the child.
As far as I can see, the main difference is that a vasectomy is a painless office procedure, and an abortion is not.
Or they can both stay home and jerk off, which is starting to seem a lot more appealing, as the options go.
That came out more hostile than I meant it, particularly given that you characterized your intuition as a weak one. Let me come up with some reasons for my disapproval.
a vasectomy is a painless office procedure
A vasectomy is not a painless procedure, once the anaesthetic wears off. My relatives who have had them assure me that the following week is teh suck.
Both are outpatient office procedures, though.
no more meatcake for you, Apo!
Anyway, the one who is most strongly opposed to having a child is the one who should be having the surgery.
a vasectomy is a painless office procedure
Usually. Except when it isn't.
Nevertheless, I would contend that even a general anaesthetic with concommitant overnight stay in hospital (as I had) is something I would prefer to an abortion in most circumstances.
Okay. (I'm going to leave abortion out of this, because you characterized your intuition as not contigent on the availability of abortion.)
Men and women both participate in bringing childbirth about -- a child will not be born unless a man and a woman both contribute genetic material. If responsibility comes from being a but-for cause of the birth of a child, then it applies to both the father and mother of that child.
From a justice point of view: childrearing is a colossal tangible detriment to the responsible parent. The expense and the practical burden are both huge, dwarfing any other responsibility most people ever assume. The rewards are also great, but are intangible and do not necessarily accrue in proportion to the detriment suffered -- an unmarried father who visits frequently, bringing presents, and has a loving relationship with his child but has no substantial part in its support or care nonetheless receives a significant part of the benefits of fatherhood.
A presumption that the burdens of parenting belong naturally to the mother, and only by agreement or transfer to the father, strikes me as both sexist and unjust.
the one who should be having the surgery
The real problem here, of course, is liberal squeamishness about infanticide.
IIRC, some woman stole Boris Becker's sperm out of a dumpster and became pregnant with his child.
396: eeew! what was his sperm doing in the dumpster?
What was Boris Becker doing jacking off into a dumpster?
What does your moral intuitions tell you about 396?
It'sa weird and wonderful world.
Sorry, how can abortion not be relevant? The proposed contract (by the by, we should talk about what kind of damages one could get for breach (reliance, I assume, measured by costs of child support?), whether there is consideration, etc.) is not in any way different from one which calls for the woman, on the contingency that a fertilized egg implants, to either have an abortion, hope for a "natural" (grant for the moment that abortion is artificial) but premature end to the pregnancy, or pay a lump sum amount to the man (namely the amount that at a given rate of interest would yield his child support payments in perpetuity).
OK, I wasn't RC. I kinda knew I wan't.
"His after-tennis life has been plagued by scandal. On February 8, 2001, DNA results forced him to admit paternity of a daughter, Anna (b. March 22, 2000), by Russian-African model Angela Ermakova. The child was conceived in a quickie in the cupboard of the London restaurant Nobu after a drunken Becker fought with Barbara, who then left; Ermakova was a waitress there. He at first denied paternity, and his lawyers suggested that Ermakova was part of a blackmail plot devised by the Russian Mafia. Becker later claimed that they never had intercourse, rather, she performed oral sex, retaining his sperm in her mouth, then using it to inseminate herself. Nonetheless, in July 2001, he agreed to pay $5 million. As of April 2006 he was expressing huge joy from his relationship with this daughter [1]."
I now remember Becker's detectives went through her garbage for dna samples, but then, to his surprise I guess, found out he really was the father. I got the details all mixed up.
401 still applies, I think.
First, that it falls nicely into the 'hard cases make bad law' category. If it happened, which (without googling) I doubt, it's the sort of thing that happens vanishingly rarely, and shouldn't be used as a central case to deduce rules from.
Second, if he had no intentional involvement whatsoever in any activity that he understood might lead to the birth of a child, a claim which really can't be made by a father in any more probable circumstance, it does seem unjust to impose the detriments of childrearing on him. While it's also unjust to the child, there it does seem like the least worst option to treat the child as if its father were dead.
Okay, given 404, I see no reason to strain my moral intution over the case. Becker's a father.
I googled Boris-Becker sperm because of my instinct for what's important and elevated. The wiki about Becker says Becker argued he did not have intercourse with a woman later shown to have carried his child, but whom he did admit having oral with. This has let to hypothetical speculation about the external survivability of sperm, etc. but there's a fact issue at the outset, isn't there?
403: Abortion wasn't relevant to pdf's intuition because he said it wasn't. He's starting from an assumption that women are naturally responsible for children, and men only become so through their agreement to assume responsibility, whether societally assumed or explicit. I was arguing that that intuition was really, really, weird and unjust.
"But you're saying that for the man, a better option than vasectomy is a contract that requires the woman to choose between abortion and sole responsibility for the child."
Well, not exactly. In such a situation, I think the man would probably get a vasectomy anyway, but I still think that's not a complete solution. And in the situations I'm talking about, the woman has made it clear she currently feels that she would definitely get an abortion anyway, so the contract would not be requiring the woman to choose that, since she already chose that.
Not quite pwned, because the rampant speculation is what was remembered by DW, and was not mentioned in the wiki.
You are all crazy. This
From a justice point of view: childrearing is a colossal tangible detriment to the responsible parent. The expense and the practical burden are both huge, dwarfing any other responsibility most people ever assume. The rewards are also great, but are intangible and do not necessarily accrue in proportion to the detriment suffered -seems like the most natural and comfortable way to understand the child's relationship to his or her parents. If you keep the kid, you have to take care of the kid. Just as you would with a pet. Notions of "rights" to care are, I think, wrongheaded.
409: My response to this is Dave L's 368
Also: contract law is a very poor model for human relations of an intimate nature (sex, family).
I think the chance that any such contract would be freely, thoughtfully, and dispassionately entered into is low, and so I think it would be a poor idea to enforce such contracts even without the argument, which strikes me as controlling, that the child has a right to support which no one may sign away on its behalf.
"there it does seem like the least worst option to treat the child as if its father were dead."
I don't think I agree with that. Your actions are irrelevant as to your responsibility, only the needs of the child is relevant.
"If responsibility comes from being a but-for cause of the birth of a child, then it applies to both the father and mother of that child."
I don't think it does. I think the universal invariant is that the mother is responsible. I think the father's responsibility arises (again, it does so 99+% of the time) from cultural expectations and social realities, and that it's no less binding because of that, and deadbeat dads are no less assholes.
"A presumption that the burdens of parenting belong naturally to the mother, and only by agreement or transfer to the father, strikes me as both sexist and unjust."
Perhaps it strikes you this way because I haven't emphasized enough how strong the assumption of this transfer is, and how unusual and strange the situations in which it doesn't happen?
403: I think abortion *is* relevant, as it's part of the social reality that strongly shapes paternal responsibility. I say as much in the post that started this. And see my other post on it.
That was part of why I was hedging like crazy. in the dumpster hypo, even though the rights of the child still exist and should control, it seems off to impose responsibility on someone who has done literally nothing to put himself at risk of that responsibility. But you could probably talk me around to your position.
LB, if you want to convince me, here's how you could do it. Show how my hypotheticals in 382 don't show what I think they do, as per 386.
I don't think it does. I think the universal invariant is that the mother is responsible.
What does this mean? Are we talking about women who get pregnant without access of some sort to sperm?
409: I really think that vasectomy + condom = problem solved. But maybe he could get some radiation treatment as well.
Thinking she would choose abortion is not the same thing as choosing it. So, yes, the contract would be requiring her to make that choice. Anyway, if he's that worried, he should just get a realdoll. He obviously doesn't care about the woman anyway.
I don't think it does. I think the universal invariant is that the mother is responsible.
Why? Are you appealing to cross cultural norms when you say universal invariant, in which case you're simply wrong, or are you just denying that responsibility comes from being a cause of the birth, and pulling your conclusion out of your intuition?
To be very clear, I think the standard for the father getting responsibility is very, very low, but not universal.
The right to support from at least one source that I agree is a universal right, requires that we have . . . clearly defined transfer of responsibility whenever that transfer happens.
...
When it is there, it's because the mother has transferred part of her responsibility
This is it in a nutshell. Your assertion that only one parent has a responsibility to a child, coupled with the biological reality that mothers are the ones who actually bear children, boils down to an implicit assertion that only mothers, not fathers, have a responsibility to children.
On those grounds, I assert that the original post over at your place that we are now discussing seriously undercuts your feminist credibility. No, you are not consciously being sexist, but the implications of the line of thinking you're pursuing are horrifically sexist, and your inability to recognize that suggests that, for now, your adherence to the principle of "fairness" (to men) is more importance than your adherence to the principle of justice for women.
I know that you're attached to a view of humanity that imagines that some day we'll transcend biological reality. Quite aside from any issues I might have with that philosophy, it's clear that we aren't at that state in the present, and thought experiments that imagine we are are really quite offensive to present women's reality.
(On further reflection, I think that the "feminist" guy at your place who lambasted you over the man/girl dichotomy was even more of a tool than I at first realized, given that he was more interested in picking on your word choice than he was able to recognize this fundamental flaw in the argument at hand.)
Are you appealing to cross cultural norms when you say universal invariant
Why would this even matter, unless there's an underlying "natural law" or sociobiology (same thing) argument going on. I doubt very much that most people who comment here believe (or believe strongly) in natural law, so arguments that appeal to it are more or less useless.
I think the standard for the father getting responsibility is very, very low, but not universal.
I don't understand what this means. What standard? Set by whom?
pdf, you do know that babies only happen when a man and a woman have sex, right?
Here's one way I might put it:
1) People are responsible for situations they help to create.
2) It requires a man and a woman to create a pregnancy.
2a) We will assume that no one was coerced: no rape, no stealing semen out of dumpsters.
3) Therefore, a man and a woman, choosing freely to have sex, are jointly responsible in creating a pregnancy.
Now, you seem to be committed to saying that abortion is irrelevant, so I'm going to grant that you're not arguing that:
4) Women can have abortions so
5) Men should be able to have "paper abortions."
But now I'm just not at all clear what you're saying. If the abortion issue is completely irrelevant, then we're back to 1, 2, and 3. And you seem to be denying that men have any responsibility in bringing about a child.
You can claim it's an intuition that there's a universal invariant but that doesn't win too many arguments when your intuitions seem to ignore basic biological realities. Where is this invariant coming from?
416: Because they don't have anything to do with a special relationship between the mother and the child other than the necessary physical proximity at birth. ("I was born at an early age, in New York, so I could be near my mother.")
Say in your fathers-are-conventionally-responsible world, with a missing father at birth, that the mother dies in childbirth. The only person in the room is the doctor who was caring for her. I'd say that most people would assume that the doctor has some moral responsibility to get the kid to someone who will feed it and care for it, and not to abandon it until he has found someone to transfer his responsibility to. That's not because of some innate responsibility of medical professionals to care for children, that's just because we feel a general responsibility to care for the helpless.
The sole basis of your intuition appears to be that women are physically present at birth, while men have the option of flight. This does not appear to me to be a moral relevant fact.
418: You're still coming from the position that there is always a responsibility, and that vasectomy+condoms are just a very effective way to (non-derogatively) avoid that responsibility. But I'm arguing against a position that there always is that responsibility.
The contract would require her only to not ever have the right to child support from the father. She can still choose to bear the child.
422: I don't think it would matter, but I could see someone making the argument if it were true: "Just as all cultures disapprove of murder, all cultures place sole responsibility for children on the mother." And 'universal' made me think that that might be the argument pdf was going for.
Are we talking about women who get pregnant without access of some sort to sperm?
No I think I can see pdf23ds's argument -- when a man ejaculates he is really shooting the sperm away from his body, dissociating it from himself, disowning it. The body into which he shoots it might as well be a dumpster, really, when all is said and done. The woman/dumpster, by receiving the sperm, assumes responsibility for it.
And I pretty much agree with B's 421.
428: Let's not go there. I think pdf is wildly wrong, and wrong in a way that ends up having terribly sexist implications, but he didn't say anything like you imply, and shouldn't have to defend himself against that sort of implication.
425: OK, let me try to change my position a little. (I think, back to what I was thinking earlier.) When a child is born, there is a nebulous "right to be cared for" floating around in the ether. That right exists universally, but it doesn't necessarily attach to the mother or father. A society that doesn't ensure that it gets attached to someone is a bad society. A person that sees that right being ignored, and themselves ignore it, is a bad person. But any system which ensures that that right gets respected is a good system.
So there is no universal right to support from the mother--she's not in any priveleged position. Neither is the father.
I think it was a mistake to ever try to make the mother's responsibility out to be somehow universal.
427: Sorry, I'm using "universal" as a synonym for "a priori" and "in all possible worlds". I could probably be clearer about that.
426: Because it is my position that there is always a responsibility, absent theft-of-sperm. Men who go around creating children and refusing to support them are irresponsible.
The contract would require her only to not ever have the right to child support from the father. She can still choose to bear the child.
Yes, and be solely responsible for its welfare. I think that's what I said.
Don't make hit the caps lock. It'll be your own fault.
430: apologies then for taking his argument the wrong way.
The contract would require her only to not ever have the right to child support from the father.
Child support is not for the mother. It is for the child.
Look, this conversation is infuriating to me, so I'm going to bail. But basically it sounds like what you are saying is that the (sexist) status quo, by which women give birth, so babies are women's responsibility, is the "natural" and therefore right one, and should be the default. Basically, this is an enormous rationalization of the status quo, overlaid with an argument that the status quo is "unfair" to men because once in a blue fucking moon the state calls on them to support their own children with a couple hundred bucks a month.
And I'm sorry, but your concern with this "unfairness" to men, coupled with your insistence that assigning sole responsibility for children to women is basically just a-ok, is so incredibly self-involved that it boggles the mind. Defend the status quo if you must, but when you couple that defense with an elaborate argument about how unfair it is that men are expected to bear *any* responsibility towards children other than that which they freely magnanimously choose to exercise, is pretty much the definition of sexism.
(Although edit out the "dumpster" stuff from my 428 and this really is what I am taking from pdf's argument.)
"but the implications of the line of thinking you're pursuing are horrifically sexist"
Which I explicitly disavow with this in my second post:
I’m not sure I can support this case even if it turns out the guy doesn’t really owe her child support by my view. Because this sort of situation is still relatively rare, and in general to have that sort of precedent is going in exactly the wrong direction for women’s rights in this country. I do think it’s unjust for men in that situation, but compared to the injustice that women suffer, it’s really almost excusable. I’m much more afraid that, in the current climate, changing this would be an overcorrection and lead to more injustice to women in child support cases than it prevents against men in these cases.
Is this not enough of a disclaimer?
433: You're not addressing my argument though. If I did think that men always had that responsibility, I'd agree with everything you're saying. But you're not arguing that point, which is the point of contention here.
435: Sorry, slip of the tongue. I don't see how it makes a difference, though, especially seeing as how I've already argued that it's *not* the universal right of the child, only a contingent right.
No, it's not, because you're making that weak disclaimer and then going on to support the argument anyway. If what you want is a society where the responsibility for children's upkeep doesn't naturally reside in *either* of the biological parents, as you're beginning to say (because, I think, you're starting to realize why it's fucked up to assume that it belongs to the mother but not the father), then argue for *that*, for some kind of socialist utopia where children are raised communally, rather than trying to make the case that expecting fathers to have any connection to their children is unfair.
And anyway, the point is that paternal responsibility isn't an unfortunate and unfair but necessary side-effect of the current social state of being, which is all your concession allows; it's that paternal responsibility--which so far we're only saying consists of money, rather than care or time or space--is inherent to the condition of being a reproductivally functioning male. Honestly, I can't get past the feeling that the sense that it's unfair to have responsibilities one doesn't choose to have is really immature.
Let me just say that an appeal to necessary truth isn't going to help you here.
You haven't refuted my argument, that contributing 50% percent of the genetic material gives a man 50% of the responsibility for the resulting child.
Any man who feels that this is unfair can avoid this frightful burden by keeping his pants zipped.
I'm bailing with B.
When a child is born, there is a nebulous "right to be cared for" floating around in the ether. That right exists universally, but it doesn't necessarily attach to the mother or father. A society that doesn't ensure that it gets attached to someone is a bad society. A person that sees that right being ignored, and themselves ignore it, is a bad person.
Okay, you've backed away from the position that women are necessarily responsible for their children while men aren't, and I'm glad to hear it. The way you put this, though, makes me think that you're still thoughtlessly relying on the status quo, and ignoring the way it unjustly burdens women.
Look at what you said -- while neither parent is necessarily responsible for the kid, anyone who sees the kid's right to be cared for ignored, and ignores it themselves, is a bad person. So Joe knocks up Jane (say they're both pro-lifers -- not all that unlikely) and splits during the pregnancy. He doesn't have any necessary responsibility (neither of them does) and he doesn't see the kid being neglected. He left town.
Jane, on the other hand, is there in the delivery room. If she doesn't feed the kid, (or arrange for its adoption, which may be difficult, depending on Jane's race, the health of the baby, etc.) there is no one else obvious to take on that responsibility. So if she doesn't take it on, she sees the right being ignored, and she's a bad person for not stepping in.
You're still putting moral weight on the fact that men have the practical capacity to flee from a pregnancy that progresses to childbirth, whereas women don't.
"then argue for *that*, for some kind of socialist utopia where children are raised communally"
I'm saying that I think it's the way our current society works. Not that it's a socialist utopia, but that the responsibilities aren't necessarily put on the biological parents. The process in which they get put on the parents is a contingent fact of history. And I think the current process, as it actually plays out, almost always assigns responsibilities to both parents, and leaves a lot of men shirking their responsibilities, and I think that those men are blameworthy. But the processes by which the parents get that responsibility is contingent, and could easily change along with social attitudes. I think the process is not automatically just or equitable.
"paternal responsibility isn't an unfortunate and unfair but necessary side-effect of the current social state of being, which is all your concession allows; it's that paternal responsibility [...] is inherent to the condition of being a reproductivally functioning male"
I've been arguing against the second position, but I don't think that commits me to the first. In fact, I explicitly reject the first. Depending on social conditions (and in our current social conditions) paternal responsibility is (almost always) quite fair, and fortunate at least from a societal standpoint.
The process, the mechanism by which the responsibility of transferred to the parents is, to me, unclear, as it involves lots and lots of different factors, so I hesitate to address this, but:
"So if she doesn't take it on, she sees the right being ignored"
Yes, the current status quo does often unfairly burden women. It also, much more rarely, unfairly burdens men. (I think the burden on men is a bit more sensational and less familiar (and of course it affects men more than women), and so it attracts more attention.) I didn't mean to ever not acknowledge this, as it's always been my belief.
"He doesn't have any necessary responsibility (neither of them does) and he doesn't see the kid being neglected. He left town."
Well, of course he has no necessary responsibility. But I think Joe is most likely wrong here--he ought to see that he has an actual responsibility--but it depends on the details. And since I'm so unclear on exactly how this responsibility transfer process works, I can't really say exactly why. In many cases, Joe should know that the level of care the woman could provide the child without his support would be lower than is obligatory, and that would oblige him to assume some responsibility for the child. But there are many other factors. (What level this is, I'm not sure. I don't think it's obligatory for caretakers to give the child all the resources they can, but certainly, it should be enough resources to put the child on a reasonable footing in life as they mature.)
Also, people can abandon responsibility for a child, and be wrong about it, without the child losing their right to be cared for by someone at all.
And finally, I really don't have much invested in this position (I mean, see how unclear my position is--I just think interesting to discuss), so I think accusations that I'm a bad feminist because I don't give those other issues the consideration they deserve are invalid. And I think that the implications of my position are hardly different at all from those of others' here.
441: Maybe I haven't refuted it, but you don't even seem to be interested in arguing it, where I am trying to.
443: At this point you've lost me. I don't feel impelled to vehemently disagree with you any more, but I also don't have any sense of real-world consequences of what you're talking about.
445: I think mainly the point of it is to establish a moral framework which accounts for all of our current intuitions about parental responsibility, but then allows for the possibility that sometimes that responsibility may not be as present. But to really continue the discussion, it would be necessary to explicate which factors (which at this point would be agreed to be contingent) are involved in the assignment of this responsibility, and how those factors play out in normal situations (they should lead to the broadly accepted outcome) and in the relevant edge cases.
And for that, my interest wanes.
Well, at least I've seemed to quell the outrage.
I just don't see why either party (mother/father) should be assumed to be responsible for the kid. If one or both wants to raise it, ok. But if neither wants to raise it, they can put it up for adoption. Its not like the kid will starve if its not raised by the biological parents. Raising a kid seems like a huge decision that noone really thinks about when having sex (unless they are specifically trying to conceive) so the default assumption shouldn't be that the childmakers are also child rearers.
449: Possibly you're over-analyzing the issue?