Calibrating
Allow me to make a banal observation: it can be very hard to know how one is coming across, just as it can be very hard to know what other people mean by how they are coming across. It’s all just very difficult! Which is just as well, in some ways – we don’t want to be totally transparent – we don’t want our every gesture and intonation to be unambiguous and indisputable, like 2+2=4. We want a little flexibility, some shading, some room to maneuver – some doubt.
But in other ways it can be tiresome. We may misunderstand other people, and they may misunderstand us, and that’s not always helpful. I’ve just read the Zoë Heller novel The Believers; one of the main characters is a woman who started out in her youth being interestingly and amusingly irascible, so that people would say ‘get Audrey in here to talk to that jerk, she’ll soon sort him out’; but forty years later it dawned on her that what is charming in a young woman is repellent in an old one. That realization wasn’t as poignant or whatever it was supposed to be as it could have been because Audrey is so exaggerated – she is always bad-tempered and rude and just plain unpleasant, she is always on one note and not particularly amusing on that one note. But still – she does stand for something. One can think one is simply being forthright and clear, and then discover that to other people one is being mean and a bully and much too aggressive.
Especially, of course, if one is a woman. It’s a very familiar trope of second-wave feminism that what is seen as leadership and decisiveness in a man will be seen as aggression or ball-breaking in a woman. But that doesn’t mean no woman can possibly be too aggressive. It may however mean that a woman who thinks she is more indignant than aggressive will be surprised to be told otherwise.
This becomes all the more complicated when what the woman is irritable, or indignant, or aggressive about is itself something to do with her being a woman – when she reacts with hostility to a sexist jibe, for example. It may be that she reacts with hostility to sexist jibes on principle, as well as out of actual hostility. She may think that sexist jibes shouldn’t just be ignored or laughed off or brushed aside. We talked about this last month, but of course new occasions are always arising. So…women are kind of stuck, frankly. Damned if they do damned if they don’t. Stuck with sexist jibes if they don’t, seen as aggressive if they do.
Well no, that’s not entirely true. One can be skilled at calibrating one’s response, one can be firm but fair, and so on. But…sometimes one just wants to bark when yet another sexist taunt comes along. So one does. Woof.
The net makes misunderstanding and calibration a difficult task, there’s no facial or body language available. Having said that, being a guy, I have it easy in comparison with women.
I hate it when a women is told to shut about about inequality because the law says we’re equal. As if gazetting a law gets rid of structural and cultural inequality……
You have your own style, which probably turns lots of people off, but also wins you admirers, including people like myself, who don’t always agree with your opinions, but admire your style, your intelligence, your courage, your coherence. Keep at it.
Using the MBTI terms, some people are “feelers”, preferring harmony and social cohesion over being right; others are “thinkers” who prefer discussions of fact even if it means upsetting people. I don’t think there’s a way to please both groups so if you write on controversial subjects you’re bound to irritate some people.
I can see how you would piss some people off but that’s why I love your writing so much. Being outspoken and direct is what attracts me to your writing and no doubt it’s what makes you a target for abuse. Small consolation I know.
It’s not just net-induced insensitivity though. If we’re to show that we’re responsive to the common troubles of persons, then we’re supposed to behave in ways that rectify those troubles in some way; and if we’re to behave properly, then we have to be insensitive to a degree. Insensitivity is an inevitable byproduct of the fact that at any given moment we’re constructing our norms of the acceptable just as much as we’re calibrating our sense of whether or not the norms work at helping us get along.
Anyone that lives a life of consistency is going to upset somebody somewhere along the line. And in those regrettable situations, there is no way to defend yourself from the charge that you are a jerk, if terms like “jerk” are to have any natural (hence non-question-begging) meaning. In genuine cases of moral integrity when one is asserting something, and has violated some pouter pigeon’s delicate sensibilities, then one may say, “Yes, I am sure you must see me as a jerk when I tell you my judgment about x. But I have tried to speak as fairly as I can. More importantly, your opinion on x remains wrong.” I think that Kant had it absolutely on the nose in this case: as far as duty is concerned, virtue necessarily presupposes that apathy (of a kind) is a strength. Woof woof.
But these are also opportunities where one has to explain their perceived duties as best they can. And obviously if these duties cannot be rationally defended, i.e., on the grounds of inducing well-being, reciprocity, and that good stuff, then we must default back to a state of fellowship.
Women suffer a bit more for their consistencies. That’s because people are mysogynistic shitheads. But the temptation for people to act like shitheads is the idea they can get away with it, due to the perceived passivity of women. Luckily, this is a misperception, and it is always entertaining to see these psychos get taken down a peg. But more seriously, some people — regardless of gender — do, as a matter of fact, have overwhelming timidity. The meek are stuck in the state of fellowship, of chronic sympathy and timidity. You’d think that that would make them great people. Actually it leads to being subject to disproportionately bullying treatment even from those of decent moral character, since any time the meek show even mild courage it is so out of character that it will be utterly shocking to others. Since this effect is highly unpleasant for the timid, it can be easily internalized; and if taken for granted, it produces both ethical deformity and mental illness. If the timidity is the result of depression, then all the more likely to be damaging. But this is not a reason for the bold to disembowel themselves. It is a reason for the meek to take antidepressants.
Tyro, yes that’s just it…where I may think I’m being outspoken, perhaps a tad acerbic…someone else may think I’m a bully. This is the difficulty of calibration.
“the idea they can get away with it, due to the perceived passivity of women.”
That too is just it. I prefer to subvert that perception. But then when I think I’m just subverting that perception, it turns out I’m a bully.
OB, I just don’t think you realise how unusual and idiosynchratic (if that isn’t jusdt saying the same thing) your style is. You are not just forthright and acerbic, you are very serious in a way that is rare in the world of blogs which generally are much more facetious and tolerant of facetiousness. But that’s not what takes some people back (took me aback, at any rate) it is that you are also very willing to invest emotionally in what you write about in a way that is very (it seems to me) unguarded and unaffected. So, an odd mixture of emotionalism and intellectual seriousness and, sometime, expressive ferocity which is unlike anything else I have come across on the interwebs. None of this is meant to be negatively critical, quite the oopposite. I would like a better word than ’emotionalism’, but it isn’t meant to disparage. I might have put ‘sentiment’ or even ‘sentimentality’ but that word has been completely devalued (Nabokov rails about that somewhere, I think). ‘Passion’ might be better, but it is another word that has started to ring hollow to me.
I’d like to second John’s note above. He’s what you might call ‘dead right’. Ophelia, you are quite unique amongst internet writers and critics. You engage with passion (good Humean word, that) and with intellectual responsibility. You can woof all you like, so long as you keep doing what you do best, take intelligent responsibility for every bark, and explain clearly why it is that, on occasion, you simply must bare your teeth and even bite.
It occurs to me that most people do not understand moral discourse. Our passional responses are absolutely crucial to establishing a reasoned position, just as Rousseau, Hume, Adam Smith and other 18th century Enlightenment figures believed. The idea, floated by the religious, that morality demands commands without any admixture of emotion couldn’t be more wrong. We are born with natural responses to cruelty and other things which eventually end up being part of our moral repertoire of ideas and resposnes. To these are superadded reason and discrimination. This is a complex process. Most people are unwilling to undertake it – like the silly Andrew Brown, for instance, or like me when I get up an gallop around a bit ridiculously on my hobby horse.
Certainly, callibrate your response if you like, but if you have to woof, well, woof, for goodness sake, even when you have to woof over the sillness that men get up to when they think that some kind of sexist epithet will put you in your place and leave them in possession of the field. Men have been doing that since the first day. They think they can get away with it just because they’re men, and sometimes even a premonitory woof is not enough.
Ophelia, the preceding comments say it far better than I. Nothing wrong with a bit of passion. To continue the Humean line of thought. Reason is and always will be the slave of passion. That’s my excuse anyway.
Can’t offer anything to improve on the mounds of flattery heaped upon you already, so won’t bother! :-)
Reckon this is where “The older we get, the more like ourselves we become” deserves trotting-out again. (A little aphorism from a wonderful retired educational psychologist friend)
Please go on becoming even more OB than you already are…
This brings to mind Beth Ditto. Here’s an interview where she tells of being so disgusted by some sexist and homophobic comments she overheard that she deliberately puked all over the people saying them. I kind of like her for it. So I’m probably not the person who will be giving you advice on how to make yourself more socially acceptable.
http://shirtliftersoftheworld.com/2009/07/beth-ditto-vomits-on-homophobes/
It’s off topic, but, did anyone see Tanya Gold’s comment on Ratzingers visit to Britain? And the reply (today) by Melanie McDonagh (Both in the Guardian, presumably found on CiF belief, but I only have Paper Copy).
I would suggest it merits it’s own thread?
T.
Hahahaha – mounds of flattery indeed. Fortunately I’m rational enough to remember that people who comment here already like the place, especially since I’ve driven everyone else away by woofing at them! On the other hand I’m also passional enough to think those people are not such bad people…
Anyway, thanks all.
Theodore, yes, I linked to the Tanya Gold piece in News a couple of days ago. Haven’t seen the reply though; that should be good. Perhaps I’ll woof at it…
What people are offended by is to a great extend more dependent on them that on the message. It is hard to tell in advance what the reaction will be, and surely one would not be in favour of selfcensorship under normal circumstances. It is hard to see why Dawkins is considered strident and gets accused of potentially turning people against science, while on the other hand Sagan is lauded. Sagan did after all write “The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark” which I would have thought would be considered offensive by many of the same people who consider “The God Delusion” offensive. Admittedly, one would have to read a little of the book, most likely the back cover would suffice, in order to find out that the author does not think that the world is haunted by demons,and that there is therefore cause for taking offence. Whereas, with the God Delusion one can get on with getting offended merely after reading the title.
OB: If it quacks like a duck…
Whether you agree with me on this point or not, if you play the questioning role of a philosopher, then you are one. As there is no shortage of people who do not like having their assumptions, theories and operating systems challenged, there will never be a shortage of mud, brickbats and worse being thrown at those who do it.
My Macquarie dictionary defines
‘acerbic’ as ‘sour, harsh, bitter’. None of those apply in your case. You are not a Joan Didion slouching towards wherever. You just call a spade a spade, and a shovel if apt; especially of it is full of some self-serving excretion from an outfit like the Vatican. (Vide the thread following this: ‘Quite [sic] picking on that nice Mr Pope fella’.) Particularly when the self-serving is done in the name of the general good.
I know of no more searching question than “is that so?” You ask it in a whole variety of ways, and I get the impression that you suffer fools a bit more gladly than you do intelligent hypocrites; which is what makes this such a lively blog.
Quite a good lot of picking indeed.
;-)
Oops! Dratted typo! Quit…not quite…
Aw, shucks, Ian.
What everyone said, and double. The combination of your intellect, the way you probe assumptions, and your style, is what makes B&W what it is. It’s why I became a devoted reader.
Aside from the fact that I aesthetically prefer the slightly acid, or biting, commentary to the anodyne, I think we need more people willing to stick their discursive necks out for the sake of substance. As someone whose passion about topics sometimes means my fingers fly faster than my brain (not accusing you of this, O), I know the risk of overreacting or being perceived to have overreacted. But on balance, I’d rather see smart commentators take that risk and really wrestle with an issue. Better to have to back up and say mea culpa occasionally than to never really defend a position, or criticize a moral outrage, for fear of being seen as unseemly. There’s a lot of that around already, and you all know who I mean (I think).
I don’t actually think you’re unusually aggressive (though the other blogs I read are quite angry in tone, so my sample might be off). I do think you’re unusually uncompromising, and you don’t make a lot of jokes. Bitter sarcasm, yes, but not jokes. I can see how the effect that creates might come across as harsh when compared to some other blogs.
But really, that’s not a bad thing at all, unless you end up being unfair or unkind in the process. There’s nothing inherently wrong with serious and uncompromising!
Andy Gilmour: “The older we get, the more like ourselves we become”
is good.
Be like yourself OB.
OB: It just so happens that my wife has just written the history of her mother’s family, and despite all 18 or so readings of the MSS and proofs a typo managed to get through. The chapter headed ‘A Quite Achiever’ should have been ‘A Quiet Achiever’. From these 2 examples in the last 2 days I deduce that words beginning with a capital ‘Q’ are particularly accident prone. (Can it be mere coincidence that ‘Q’ rhymes with ‘2’?)
I think that the quince essence of this probably lies in Occam’s Razor or the Law of Averages. If Q was the 13th letter of the alphabet, the Law of Excluded Middle would probably have something to do with it as well.
I think (pace Ian) that ‘acerbic’ has resonances which aren’t quite captured by the dictionary definition he quotes. So I think you (ie OB) *could* be described as acerbic (which I don’t see as a bad thing), acid, assertive, even abrasive (which is fine by me) – but not as aggressive.
“some people are “feelers”, preferring harmony and social cohesion over being right;”
Yeah, these people play it safe and are very disturbing to be around as their ‘feelings’ are based on false securities.
“others are “thinkers” who prefer discussions of fact even if it means upsetting people.”
The ‘thinkers’ by far, in my estimation, are the best people to hang around with; as they are invariably passionate individuals who do not have to depend on thinking ‘within the box’ to safeguard so-called) security. Besides, they are prepared to take risks because of their views.
“I don’t think there’s a way to please both groups so if you write on controversial subjects you’re bound to irritate some people.”
That’s for sure.
“I can see how you would piss some people off but that’s why I love your writing so much. Being outspoken and direct is what attracts me to your writing and no doubt it’s what makes you a target for abuse. Small consolation I know.”
The people that get pissed off obviously do not get the bigger B&W picture. For instance, OB, dedicates all her time pointing out passionately to the world the despicable misogynistic ways of men towards women. “Does God Hate Women” her latest book is all about women who have suffered at the hands of these bullies. Being outspoken and direct is what also attracts me to OB’s writing. She beats about the misogynistic miserable bush and bullies do not like truth’s being spoken as they threatens their power over women.
“Yeah, these people play it safe and are very disturbing to be around as their ‘feelings’ are based on false securities.”
Well, no.
First, the MBTI “types” are simply attempts to classify people into different personality groups based on the way in which they respond in different situations. There is no suggestion that any one way of behaving is better than any other.
Second, feelings are not necessarily based on “false securities”. The idea that someone who “thinks” is necessarily right and someone who “feels” (ie responds emotionally) is necessarily wrong is flawed.
I enjoyed The Believers though the characters were caricatures on the whole. Audrey didn’t remind me of you in the slightest, OB. Audrey isn’t reflective or particularly clever. She’s a Big Mac – always the same and not very nice.
I can only echo the flattery that’s has been directed Ophelia’s way in this thread. Whether it’s achieved with eloquent and amusing acerbity, or simply well-directed woofing, the other thing that makes me love OB’s work so much is the fact that she is nearly always right (imho, of course).
I hope I’m not flattering myself by imagining the original post was prompted by a bark she let out at a commenter on my site. It appeared shortly afterwards, so maybe I’m justified.
Anyway, in my response to the bark I try to explain why this is a case where OB is… if not entirely wrong, at least not as right as she usually is.
Oh right – I’d forgotten all about that particular bark!
I bark so much I lose track of where I’ve barked and when and about what and why and at whom and what the weather was like at the time…
We had a whole huge discussion about cunt and twat and pussy here back in April, David – and I was at least dragged into realizing and acknowledging that the meanings are different in the UK. But I continue to think that that’s profoundly problematic. It’s rather as if ‘nigger’ had a different meaning in the UK…That would be profoundly problematic, wouldn’t it? It might still be possible and okay to use the word among British people only – but that would entail using it only in meat world, in other words, only in a place where you know that everyone will understand the word the same way. That’s not possible online. The same applies to ‘cunt’ (or the ever so tactful ‘CNT’ – and if the word is so comparatively anodyne in the UK, why the tact?). It seems to me an incredibly fraught word to use unless one actually wants to risk making some readers feel as if spat upon.
Ah – I see you are as right as usual after all, Ophelia! I should have known better :)
(And I had just spent a couple hundred words over at my site patiently explaining what you clearly already know, and drawing the basically same conclusion as you do. Doh!)
No you were right over there David – I should keep in mind that the word has a different resonance in the UK and I should have noodged that commenter less roughly.