pedersen@cartan.berkeley.edu (Sharon L. Pedersen) (05/06/91)
[I removed the e-mail name of the original poster because the article had originated from a private mailing list and the poster should have been anonymous. I hope leaving a first name is not out of bounds. - MHN] In article <MUFFY.91May1081920@remarque.berkeley.edu> under the subject heading "Book Review: Don't Bet on the Prince" muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes, referring to some feminist literary criticism essays: >I didn't always agree with the >writers, but their ideas were presented very clearly, and not angrily or >vehemently, which I would find hard to read and take seriously. I had just read Joan's article asking for "an approach to harassment" for her student being harassed by her (the student's) boss [** see note at end]. Joan writes: >If she gets angry and tells him to stop, he just laughs and thinks it is cute. Many of us reading soc.feminism are familiar with the "Oh isn't she cute when she's angry" response. Or, the "This person is angry, therefore their arguments are not valid" response. It's infuriating, and unjustified to dismiss someone's ideas because that person has reason to feel strongly about them. Unfortunately the best way to deal with it is as was suggested by another reader: calmness, if not indifference. If the boss can be made to feel tiresome rather than bold for his harassment, then there will be no payoff for him. If literary critics can assume a stance of cool academic studiousness, then they can creep in under readers' hotspots and get a hearing for their ideas. ** [sarcasm on] Gosh, wouldn't English be a much better language if we had separate pronouns for professors and students? Then I wouldn't have to add that clarifying "the student's". [sarcasm off] --Sharon Pedersen pedersen@cartan.berkeley.edu OR ucbvax!cartan!pedersen
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) (05/08/91)
Why is it that people take other people less seriously when they are displaying anger? I don't know the answer in general, but I know how I see it. When reading/hearing someone else's ideas I like to be given the opportunity to alter my opinions by being shown a persuasive argument and possibly entering into a discussion, where we each present support for our views. I do not enjoy simply being hit over the head with someone else's views, and I try to avoid that experience. With written/published material, it is hard to have an actual discussion with the writer (except on the net, of course), so I look for some signs in the writing that the writer has considered the opposing points of view and found them unpersuasive. The best is to see an actual refutation of opposing views, although limited space does not always allow that. It has been my experience that people who express things very angrily are unwilling to listen to contradictory ideas. Their idea of arguing against contradictory ideas seems to be to get more angry (now personally) and to "argue" against those contradictory ideas with either insults or some sort of illogic (like: "well, if you disagree, then you must be in favor of <something appalling/abhorrent/indefensible>"). Therefore, when I see or hear things expressed angrily, I feel that the person has probably not formed their ideas by considering all the information, but rather by accepting the information that suits them and ignoring the rest. It is difficult for me to respect an opinion that is based on emotion and which is maintained by a refusal to listen to any contradiction. I have rarely seen anything which is presented angrily which gives me the opportunity to consider the issue for myself. Rather, I see many emotional assertions which I am just supposed to accept because of vehemence with which the author expresses them. Since anger repels many people and just amuses others, it doesn't seem to be the best way to get an idea across. As far as I can tell, the people who are convinced by these emotional tactics are those who are first made to feel the same emotion as the author. So, the author may present some examples which will make the reader angry about the same subject. Then, having established a relationship based on this emotion, the reader may be ready to believe things without analyzing them as much as they might normally. Once again, this is based on my experiences (and those of friends) in attempting to have discussions with angry people. To add to the effect of the general impressions of angry people detailed above, when someone is angry, people often feel that they, personally, are being attacked, and they become defensive, and less willing to listen to what the angry person has to say. You can say that the person on the receiving end should be able to look beyond the anger, but the fact is that they frequently can't. "Communication" implies some effort on each side; the person trying to express their ideas should have some consideration for how that expression will be perceived and received. Are they really trying to communicate, or just to express themselves? If you are trying to communicate with someone, doing something which will cause them to not listen to you doesn't make sense. If it seems to me that someone is just talking to express their emotions, not to communicate their ideas, then why should that affect my opinions? Muffy
rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs.com (05/09/91)
In article <1991May5.184723.29313@agate.berkeley.edu>, pedersen@cartan.berkeley.edu (Sharon L. Pedersen) writes: > > I had just read Joan's article asking for > Many of us reading soc.feminism are familiar with the "Oh isn't she > cute when she's angry" response. Or, the "This person is angry, > therefore their arguments are not valid" response. It's infuriating, > and unjustified to dismiss someone's ideas because that person has > reason to feel strongly about them. I think you'll find that any individual who dismisses a womans feelings/opinions simply because she expresses her anger is just as likely to dismiss a mans feelings/opinions when he expresses his anger. The language used may be different, and the historical tendancy for men to suppress their feelings hides the male side of the problem, but the issue is one of general insensativity, not male-dismissing-female. Mike