From: alubiw@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Anna Lubiw)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Observations about USENET discourse
Date: 11 Dec 1992 22:30:30 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1g8tdhINN8dp@agate.berkeley.edu> uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Robert Coleman) writes:
>
>	I see the truth of what you're saying, that to make a connection with
>*women*, I have to show an emotional core.  I've seen this happen a number
>of times on the net now, and each case, women actually *thanking* me for
>it.  I see that if I want to connect with some women, I have to do this.

You have totally misunderstood the point, and are being offensively sexist 
to boot. 

The point was that people who post to the net on issues like rape, 
abuse, sexism, abortion, etc., almost always have some emotional
attachment to the arguments they make.  The usual game (or discourse
style) is to hide your initial commitment, try to pass off your 
opinions as facts, and bat around the bits of logic and statistics that 
support your side, and demolish the other side.  I was objecting to this, 
and only with the mild objection that it DOES NOT PERSUADE.  
Play the game if it pleases you.

I wrote earlier:

>>Here is some more explanation of the incident: it was clear from
>>this person's "objective" arguments that some deep personal feelings
>>lay behind them.  Also, he was arousing other's feelings, by attacking
>>programs against wife-abuse.  But we were all playing the "assertive argument"
>>style, half unconscious of the underlying emotions, and mistrustful
>>of them, and thus mistrustful of him and his motives.
>
>	Why?  Why assume he isn't arguing objectively? Why assume the worst 
>motive instead of the best?

The word "objective" is in quotes up there on purpose.  He was not 
arguing objectively, he was playing the game of giving opinions as facts,
using the bits of data that suited him, ignoring what didn't, and so on.

>>>	Why does it have to be this way?  Why can't we view objective 
>>>arguments objectively? 
>
>>Because very few arguments are objective.
>
>	Whoah, heavy assertion!  IMExperience, men are quite capable of arguing
>objectively.  That is, in fact, *the default*!  I'm beginning to think that
>this is the basis of the problem; that women may be (culturally) unable to
>argue objectively, and assume that men are therefore equally unable.  I don't
>think the possibility that men really can argue objectively should go
>unexplored.  We're raised differently; this may be one of the differences we
>don't understand well.

Objectivity means seeing things clearly, beyond personal emotions and 
prejudices.  Absolutely, I stand by the statement that few
of the arguments presented in this newsgroup are objective.
It is easy to not mention your personal emotions and prejudices,
and also easy to be unaware of them--but it is very hard to go beyond 
those emotions and prejudices to objectivity.

And you are blind if you think objectivity is the default for men!

You seem to be making the mistake of assuming that if a person does
not state their emotional biases then they are being objective.
In fact the opposite is true: someone who is aware of and acknowledges 
their emotional commitments is being more objective.

--------------

Your opinion that "women may be culturally unable to argue
objectively", repeats an old and very harmful sexist stereotype,
though it's usually expressed in the milder form of women being "emotional"
and men "logical"---taking "objectivity" for men is even more arrogant.

Both the men's movement and the feminist movement do battle with this
stereotype.

Anna Lubiw


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.