Day 105: An Angry Walrus

Once upon a time, when I was much younger, I was hanging out in a roomful of men, arguing with them about sexism.

Now, we were all young.  And I'm not mad about anything that happened in there.  But, at the time, it was super frustrating, because I had men explaining to me what it was like to be a woman, and how the representation of women in media impacted me.

Yeah.  I know, right?

Super great.

Anyway, that was by no means the ONLY time this ever happened to me.  But this time was particularly memorable, mainly because it left me with two AMAZING quotes that I will carry for eternity.

One was when Rick, who was widely acknowledged as the most analytical of the group, made a meta comment about the nature of the argument.  He evaluated the situation thus;

"You're like an angry walrus in a room full of polar bears."

The resemblance is remarkable, isn't it?

I swear, y'all, that felt so true and profound to me that sometimes I whisper it to myself when I'm taking on a room full of people who disagree with me, as fortification for the fight ahead. 

The second was when Chris, who was spearheading the opposing team (ie: everybody) came up with this gem;

"I must not be explaining myself properly, because if I did, you would agree with me."

Believe it or not, this was intended to be a compliment, of sorts.  See, Chris felt that I was not entirely stupid, so therefore if he could just draw the logical progression of his thoughts for me in a thorough enough manner, I would inevitably come around to his way of thinking.  As all not entirely stupid people must.

At any rate, this particular phrase was used as a joke between myself and my partner for YEARS, so I don't really regret hearing it.

I kinda regret the whole cultural build up that makes it such a common attitude, though.

In the past week I have been told--not only once, but twice, by two separate men--that clearly I did not understand Capitalism.  If I did, I would inevitably agree with them and their economic theories.  Neither of these men was an economist.  They were just opinionated dudes, who assumed that if I disagreed, I must be ignorant. 

Oh my sweet summer child...
You know not what you have unleashed.

Folks, I am a lot of things.  But "ignorant" is not generally one of them.  I mean sure, if we're talking theoretical physics, I'm as ignorant as the next person--

I can't get past Schrödinger.  I understand the theory, I just don't understand how we define observation.  Is it simply exposure to other matter?  And, if so, what level of matter?  Are quarks good enough?  Does it need to be atoms?  Surely we're not talking about actual sentient life, are we?  That seems extreme in such a vast universe--

Sorry, got off topic.  Schrödinger is a real puzzler for me.

Anyway, my grasp of economics is generally as well informed as the next casual citizen who has no degree in the topic.  Possibly more so, since I have an actual interest in economics, and I think it's possible that the average citizen does not.  Certainly not less, since economic discussions have been part of my life from very early on, because my parents were Socialists in the South in a time when that was sort of a dirty word.

All of which means, when some dude rolls up on me with a condescending attitude and an assurance that my only problem is that no one has shown me the error of my ways, I SEE RED.

Here's the thing... I think this is a problem with our cultural model for debate.  Specifically, with what is generally a gendered model.  Men are taught to present their opinions as facts.  They are taught to deride those that disagree with them.  They are taught to be aggressive, rather than being thoughtful.

And, as a culture, we accept that this is the CORRECT way to debate.  I used to teach the SAT, and on the writing portion students were specifically told not to say "I think" or "In my opinion" because it weakened their argument.  Women are told in corporate setting to present their positions as irrefutable, to be more like men in their presentations. 

But I don't think that's a good idea AT ALL.  I think opinions should be presented as opinions, and facts should be presented as fact.  And debates should be exploratory in model, in which each side is attempting to understand and fully engage with the other's perspective. 

I THINK THAT'S HOW WE ALL TAKE THE GREATEST BENEFIT FROM HAVING OTHER, FULLY CAPABLE MINDS PONDERING THE SAME LIFE MYSTERIES.

And if you don't agree, I'm happy to debate you on it.

Now, if you'll pardon me, I need to go breathe angry walrus fire.