I Wasn’t Angry Until You Said I Was: Civility & Its Discontents
I often find myself bringing up matters with people who might have missed their problematic nature. As time passes, I have come to ration my caution and care in such matters far more selectively. It’s draining to run scenarios in my head and try to figure out the exact approach that might circumvent any sort of unpleasant feeling in the person to whom I will be speaking, especially when my efforts hardly seem to matter.
My caution certainly didn’t matter the very morning of the day when that article claiming that outspoken women of color on Twitter are “toxic feminists” was published. Those privileged enough to not be misread as angry might put their faith in civility and good faith, but I don’t. As a relatively reasonable person, I cannot. The evidence simply doesn’t support my personally prioritizing others’ perception of my civility.
That day last week, the image on the right was posted on a secular discussion group. I found it bizarre: Hugh Hefner was being presented as a secular example of someone who “lives [heaven] everyday! [sic].” Meanwhile, Hefner’s lifestyle is essentially a replication of Islamic heaven, the same afterlife used as proof by non-Muslims that Islam hates women.
I knew the person who posted it is a good-faith actor with the best of intentions who is willing to listen. As such, I strategized. I didn’t want to call him on it publicly because it might cause embarrassment. In addition, I steered clear of language that might trigger defensiveness (i.e. anything that ends with “-ist”).
Below is an abridged version of the conversation I had (bolding is mine).
Me: I wanted to talk about that meme when you have the chance
Him: What’s wrong with it?
Me: your caption sort of rubbed me the wrong way. is HH really who we want as an example of an atheist who lives in “heaven” on earth? in his world, men can have as many women as they want, but his GFs are forbidden from having any other partners. not very heavenly, imho.
Him: Well, I don’t see a problem with HH because precisely my issue with religion is that it has oppressed sexuality. Whereas, HH has pushed against that. I don’t think he is sexist because not only is there playboy but playgirl as well.Me: I am aware of his contributions towards the liberation of male-centric sexuality. But I don’t know if promoting his lifestyle as “heaven” is at all inclusive given the way his lifestyle actually works: one where a man is surrounded by as many women as he wants while they are supposed to stay monogamous to him. that sounds like Old Testament/Quranic polygamy to me, not a secular heaven-on-earth
Him: Well, aren’t you in a poly relationship as well? I guess his having GFs and not allowing them to see others is unfair, I can see your point about that and I never knew that before.
Me: yes, I have multiple relationships. but they’re egalitarian.
Him: I guess he is sort of antiquated in some of his thinking, but overall he has done great for sexual liberation.
Me: I am just sharing my PoV in private message with you out of respect and in the hopes you could see some of my perspective. his “heaven” is suspiciously close to that of Abrahamic oppressive sexist religion. So to present it on a secular group seems disingenuous to me as well as ignoring the fact that his heaven is just as sexist in some ways as those of religion.
Him: I didn’t mean to make you angry about it.Me: did I say I was angry or express anger at any time?
Him: No
He was hardly the first or only person to dub a carefully-worded, cautiously-approached conversation an expression of anger, despite my avoiding of words like “sexist.” Being read as angry when you are not does not require bad faith on the part of the person interpreting your words. All it requires is the skewed perspective bequeathed to us by the world: that anyone not upholding the status quo is disrupting it, and that such disruption is, by nature, angry.
Civility is, more often than not, in the eye of the beholder. When said eye is clouded over by subconscious biases, good faith isn’t enough to ensure that what is actually quite calm isn’t misread as “angry” and thus “uncivil.” It is with this perspective that I view those whose highest priority is “civility” with a great deal of suspicion. Attempting civility is often an exercise in futility for people in certain marginalized groups. I prioritize the elimination of the skewed perspective shared by so many, even self-described allies, that casts me as “uncivil” for daring to speak, over “civility.”
This is timely. I recently got told to “calm down” because I carefully and deliberately pointed out that trashing on overweight or “ugly” men for their physical flaws wasn’t an argument against sexism, and in fact caused splash damage to the very people that person was attempting to defend. Like me. Apparently using words like “please” and “do consider” is just too hostile a phrasing for me to be taken seriously.
It’s definitely unfortunate how quickly and often disagreement or even questioning is read as “anger.” I know that I have remained silent on a ton of topics because I didn’t want conversations to turn in that direction. I also think it’s interesting how fast the exchange here turned to you and your own lifestyle, which happens way too often as well, even when personal details are not relevant.
Yay, I can post again! No more errors!
This is just clear illustration of what so many people have been trying to explain. Our empathetic models sometimes break, and as skeptics should be aware of that and try to notice when there’s incongruency. The problem is usually with us, not them.
Not knowing the person, but it may have been the the word disingenuous. From my experience that word has become abit of an attack word in politics. Not saying it is, but somewhat like the word ignorant. Can often be used in a dictionary sense but has become an attack word for some. Think I articulated that cleanly…
And that leads me to my own…. use of similar phrases. I’ve had probing questions/discussions with people of both genders(short hand here), and often to understand another person’s point of view will poke or prod in order to comprehend the nuances. Nobody is simple in their mindset. In that, I try to tread lightly. Because personal … beliefs and stances _are_ so personal, I’d rather not cause someone discomfort. So the question can be a “canary in the coal mine”. If the conversation shifts from a… logical to emotional response, it’s good to know when to back off. Note: I am not saying one response or the other is bad, they just come from different sources and have different driving factors.
Point being, this person may have wanted to verify that you were still discussing on an intellectual level, as from this reading I think you were. He just wanted to make sure you were both on the same “page”.
I don’t see any evidence that he was verifying anything. He made a statement that presumed anger on my part and when I questioned it, admitted that I hadn’t expressed any anger.
First off, I’ll re-iterate you were in the conversation and you know the person. I’m a outsider, so this is just my reading of it.
My original comment ties with what Johnnie said. You’re correct that it was a statement, not a question. But you’re a professional word smith. If it had been me, I’m a programmer and even though English is my first language, I can be incredibly sloppy. Usually since my brain is about 3 steps ahead in the logic chain. Ask anyone who knows me from the past 20 years. Tangent sorry. But I’ve made statements instead of questions and vice versa.
You asked “did I say I was angry or express anger at any time?”, he said no and as a literal answer to you question, it’s true. He could, _could_, have read into the conversation. Yes an assumption, which lead to the poorly worded statement. In my mind the statement is evidence that I was talking about. It wasn’t for you, and that’s your prerogative. (I’ve deleted that word 10 times. think that’s fits)
Anyway, I can be bad about pushing a point. It sounded like a good discussion to have. If the conversation continued great, if it halted that’s to bad to hear.
His comment could be read another way; he could be fishing for your emotional state rather than assuming it. “I didn’t mean to make you angry” could be short hand for a pre-emptive apology. You also said that it “sort-of rubbed you the wrong way” which he could have read as soft-pedaling actual anger; swallowing it in an attempt to open a civil dialog.
I think you’re probably right about your assessment of his response. I don’t know how well you know each other; he may have made an assumption based on what motivates him (some people need to be really bothered to speak up at all about someone else’s postings).
Then he could’ve asked rather than assuming, perhaps? “Hey, I’m sorry if this made you angry” or “just checking in, how do you feel about this?” would have supported your theory. Instead, he made a statement.