The Judgment of Solomon
Rhetoric is simply inexhaustibly interesting. One never does come to the end of it. One thing that’s interesting about it is how easily it can slip past us. I’ve just noticed a bit that slipped past me the other day, when the publishers explained why they had sent a copy to one author but not the other, the other being your humble. They only had two advance copies, you see, and had to keep one in the office, but my copies were ordered from the warehouse on the same day that Jeremy’s was sent out. There it is – I didn’t catch that. It’s interesting. They had one advance copy to send out – and that was Jeremy’s. It belonged to him, already, before they even sent it. It was his property. Because – ? Who knows. Because he’s a man, because they think I’m his stenographer, because he’s an academic and I’m gutter trash; who knows. But I think it’s fascinating. Irritating, needless to say, but also fascinating. Mindless unconscious automatic discrimination and favouritism always is fascinating, especially in people who probably think they’re incapable of such a thing. (I don’t think I’m incapable of it, I should add. I’m pretty sure I’m quite capable of it. An uneasy thought.) And mindless automatic discrimination coupled with language that reveals the unconsciousness is even more fascinating.
I should give belated credit to Souvenir Press, who published the Fashionable Dictionary. I didn’t realize how special this was at the time, but they managed to send out two advance copies, one for each author. Not one copy, for one author out of two, which might possibly cause resentment on the part of the non-recipient author, but two copies, for two authors, one for each. What a sterling, admirable, ethical way to behave. And to think that in October 2004 I simply took it for granted! How little did I imagine that I was being given a special treat, being included in the publication of a book I had had a hand in writing. I know better now. Well done, Souvenir.
Petty, isn’t it. Sure; but women get like that, you know. It has to do with years and years of noticing the way in any random set of woman and man, the man is seen by others as the authoritative one to talk to. (One reader of B&W a couple of years ago took this so far as to urge JS to tell me to shut up. He really did think I was the stenographer, apparently.) Yes, we get prickly, and we resent being treated like the help; but I don’t in fact think that is unreasonable or irrational. Just for one thing, that reaction can be an engine of social change for the better. (Or it can be an engine of social change for the much worse, as we’ve been seeing for the past two weeks. There are no guarantees.) At any rate it may prompt some thought about unconscious bias and how it shows up when we don’t even realize it – a useful thing to think about.
Happy Darwin Day!
That really sucks.
I’m taking an informatics course, and yeah, I have noticed the bias. Most of the guys in my class don’t talk to me ever. A few of them do now, but it’s taken a month for them to start directing full sentences to me. Of course, they’ve always been fully capable of speaking in full sentences with other guys.
“Just for one thing, that reaction can be an engine of social change for the better. […] At any rate it may prompt some thought about unconscious bias and how it shows up when we don’t even realize it – a useful thing to think about.”
I hope so.
–IP
Ophelia, that was unworthy of you. Your initial reaction was perfectly understandable. It must hurt to have created something and not be able to hold it in your hands, especially when you know someone else can.
But to then justify that reaction (as if one was necessary) by giving it a deeper rhetorical and historical meaning, is something I believe you would not accept from anyone else.
Anyway, congratulations on the book.
OB, on this one, I think you are certainly right. It is a, academic status, and b, gender. Almost certainly. But certain offenses aren’t worth worrying too much about, since, well, what are you going to do?
Shocking. I got a box full of each of my books – you should demand a copy in no uncertain terms. Or will they be sending you some later?
I do hope they send you a copy at some point. Do press them in no uncertain terms.
Two authors does not equal one author. You (co-)wrote a book and don’t get your own copy of it? Insane!
(This happened to my mother as well, and yes, she was both less academically qualified and female. As I recall, she eventually got a copy, but not the hardcover…)
Sucks. Sounds like some socially incompetent office PERSON messed up, then chose socially incompetent words to try and explain themselves.
Give them heaps. But don’t feel like Napoleon after Waterloo… go with the screw-up theory, forgive them and avoid staining your own joy in a great achievement with pettiness over their mistake.
Mind you, on Saturday I saw this… a young doctor was answering questions for my wife in the minutes before she was prepped for an operation, and he started pointing his answer at ME, partly caused by my own lime-light hogging I imagine; I corrected us both immediately by pointing my own focus at her rather than engaging back at him. He got it very quickly, and corrected himself. She was really nervous and very courageous, and didn’t need unconscious sexism just then thanks very much.
And yes thanks, it went well and while serious is not life-threatening thank God. I light of present company, I thank rationalism too!
“Mind you, on Saturday I saw this… a young doctor was answering questions for my wife in the minutes before she was prepped for an operation, and he started pointing his answer at ME…”
Ah, but in childcare settings the responses are often directed towards the mother because the father is assumed to be incompetent. Alternatively, obvious things (food goes in this end) are explained simplistically to the father because the mother is assumed to know about such things…
OB, don’t know whether this will help but…just searched the site of an Australian supplier (to order my own copy) and only one author is listed anywhere: Ophelia Benson.
Only one advance copy? You really should get a better publisher, I normally get at least 6…. ;-)
Anyway, not to devalue in any way the perceived sexism of this event, but is it not also possible, perhaps, that the publishers had had more correspondence with your co-author, and might therefore have been led into a perception of him as the ‘lead’ figure? If this isn’t the case, then of course give ’em both barrels…
Your name is before his on the cover, and this is of course recognition of your superiority and nothing to do with the alphabet…
It seems very stingy to only send one copy; I thought that the “usual” publishing terms were to give you six free copies.
When I published a co-written academic paper, we decided between ourselves who was to be the point-of-contact author and then the publishers sent everything to them, which seemed reasonable.
I’d complain to the publishers, starting out “reasonably” and getting steadily more annoyed the longer things drag on.
“One reader of B&W a couple of years ago took this so far as to urge JS to tell me to shut up. He really did think I was the stenographer, apparently.”
Perhaps he knew JS could screw with the commenting software to enforce his censorship? ;-)
Yes, it probably does have to do with more correspondence, not to mention face time, along with the ‘socially incompetent words to try and explain’. And I will get a couple of copies. It’s also just barely possible that it doesn’t matter all that much in the great scheme of things. But some things just do push buttons.
(Oh dear. Some book site did that one name [the alphabetically prior one] thing with the FD, too. I emailed them to correct it.)
Best wishes for speedy recovery for wife, ChrisP. As I say – great scheme of things.
Ilse, I’m no good at being noble, but it don’t take much to see that the problems of one little bedwetter don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Tra la la la la.
I thought, when you (OB) mentioned JS getting the only copy the other day, that sexism was possibly to blame but didn’t say as much because I suspect I tend to over-interpret events in that direction myself. (You don’t sound petty to me, by the way.) It’s good to know that there’s probably another reason for it though.
I’ve just spent the last half-an-hour listening to this interview with Richard Dawkins on BBC Radio Five Live–I mention it because there’s a chance you didn’t catch it yourself. I’m now even more confused by the people who bang on about Dawkins being dogmatic and overbearing–he’s utterly personable.
“You don’t sound petty to me, by the way.”
Aha! My masterful disguise has worked! Now I can take over the world. Mwahahaha!
Thanks for link. [makes mental note to listen later] I know – I watched part 2 of Root…? on Friday, and had the same thought. He does include the good religion does (by giving other people the chance to say what good it does them, and he does not ridicule or contradict them), he does listen politely to nonsensical ‘arguments’ and keep his questions quite mild and civil and inquiring. He gets cross with Haggard, but how could he not? Haggard is the overbearing dogmatic one, not Dawkins, plus Haggard is plain ignorant.
… because they think I’m his stenographer…
If the publisher had only one book to send and two people to send it to, say, a university professor and an IT officer, would it be ok to send the book to the professor?
Shafika
Er – no.
It has to do with years and years of noticing the way in any random set of woman and man, the man is seen by others as the authoritative one to talk to.
You mention ‘others’. Do you mean ‘other men’ or ‘other women’ or ‘other people of both sexes’?
I expect you are the victim of statistical/ probability based discrimination — at the top end of the IQ spectrum (to which you clearly belong) men tend to be overrepresented, just as they are overrepresented at the bottom end as well (more male imbeciles, more male geniuses).
So, other things being equal, men probably ARE (on average) more authoritative. I understand, however, how intelligent women may be upset by the consequences of probability-based discrimination of this kind. There isn’t much can be done about it, though.
Good luck with your new book — if it’s as good as the last one, it will be very good indeed!
“So, other things being equal, men probably ARE (on average) more authoritative.”
But that doesn’t follow from overrepresentation at both ends.
And as for there not being much that can be done about it, I don’t think you know that – I don’t think anyone knows. Attitudes do change over time, so I think it’s very difficult to be sure what can or can’t be done.
And thanks for the compliment! People who’ve read it do seem to think it’s good…
Thanks for the good wishes OB.
And I don’t think Cathal you have made a clarifying point; I think the sexism lies in the fact of assumption. Even if there is a 70% probability of being right in selecting the male to address as lead author, the appearance that sex guided the decision of who to address would appear to me the very definition of sexism.
ChrisPer: spot on.
You might as well decide to accord the woman more authority because she’s more likely to have an adequate level of intelligence.
And there isn’t a 70% probability. The tail end effect doesn’t entail that.
But, alas, as I’ve noted here before, it does get reported that way by idiot journalists who can’t seem to learn how to phrase things accurately, and a lot of people do seem to think that is exactly what it entails, so the effect is the same. In other words, a lot of people do think that as the BBC news item put it ‘men are smarter than women’ – meaning all men are smarter than all women – meaning the dumbest man is smarter than the smartest woman – which is laughable.
Sigh.
“And there isn’t a 70% probability. The tail end effect doesn’t entail that.”
exactly right.