feminism ain't easy: all apologies

I saw this on the news last night about an exchange between Ted Cruz and Dianne Feinstein in a senate judiciary committee hearing.  It bothered me, but not for the reason you might suspect.

I'm not overly upset about Ted Cruz and his line of reasoning. Sure, I disagree with him.  I also figure if he wants to make his underlying argument look weaker by trying to be condescending, that's his decision.

What concerns me about this story -- and others recounting the exchange between Cruz and Feinstein -- is the mention at the end of her apologizing to him after the fact.  If you watch the conversation in full and not edited for prime time news (available here), you'll see that Senators Leahy and Durbin also had some cutting remarks for Cruz.  In my opinion, none of the comments, Feinstein's included, were inappropriate or disrespectfully irate.  I'm at a loss as to why she should feel the need to apologize for making a strong argument in defense of her opinions.

More to the point, why is it relevant to the journalistic recounting of events?  I can't recall the last time a story on male legislators mentioned that one apologized to another.  Maybe the men of Washington apologize to each other all over the place.  Who am I to know?  Whether they do or they don't isn't my point, though, it's that if they do, we don't hear about it (and probably don't need to).  The fact that major media outlets seem to only find it relevant when a female senator apologizes: that's what I find problematic.

feminism ain't easy: gaslights around every corner

I may have mentioned it once or eleven times, but Meet the Press on the television is a must around here on Sunday mornings. This past weekend was no exception, and goodness, was it interesting. The highlight (for me, anyway -- I know not everyone enjoys political debates) was a roundtable conversation about how the upcoming presidential election will be influenced by female voters. If you didn't catch it but you'd care to, it's available at the Huffington Post here.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Rachel Maddow and the way she handled herself during the conversation. Partially, sure, it has to do with the fact that I agree with her viewpoint, but more importantly I admire the way she articulated her opinions in an unfailingly civil and rational way. What impressed me even more in this particular exchange was the fact that she made of point of calling one of her adversaries' tactics what it was: condescending.

I posted that article with the Meet the Press clip on Facebook as well, in the hopes that more people would see it and participate in the cultural conversation about how the policies advanced by the two major political parties in this country will affect women. As an afterthought, I also added a link to this article by Yashar Ali about the concept of "gaslighting": the dismissal of women's feelings and opinions by way of framing them as irrational or otherwise invalid and unimportant. Sometimes it's intentional and sometimes it's not, but it's insidious, and it's everywhere.

When Alex Castellanos stopped debating the merits of Rachel Maddow's factual argument and referred to her as very "passionate" about her opinions, he was -- either intentionally or not -- engaging in gaslighting. He was framing her statements as emotion-based rather than fact-based, with of course makes them sound a lot less convincing. Kudos to Ms. Maddow for calling him on it.

I posted the article about gaslighting in connection with the Meet the Press clip in part because I think it's fascinating to watch the exchange with that in mind. I'm also hopeful that more people will notice (and, of course, work to decrease) gaslighting not just in political debates, but in their own lives.

Imagine my surprise, though, when I realized that Mr. Castellanos's comments during the discussion weren't the only gaslighting example on display. Once I'd clicked "submit" and the video clip appeared as a link on the page, the title as provided by Huffington Post was an example of gaslighting unto itself:


"WATCH: Maddow Flips Out on 'Meet the Press'"


You'll note, if you watch the piece, that Ms. Maddow does not "flip out." She states her opinions. She appears to be annoyed with Mr. Castellanos. She counters points she disagrees with. But she does not "flip out," and to say that she does inaccurately presents her as someone who is irrational and less worthy of respect.

But what, you ask, is the best part in all this? Could it get more deliciously ironic? Why yes, yes it could: the Huffington Post also ran the very same gaslighting article I linked to above on its site here back in September of 2011. They filed it under, among other things, "women's rights" and "inspiring."

Insidious, indeed.

Feminism ain't easy: standing up to double standards

"Girls aren't good at math."

The overwhelming majority of people I interact with would find that to be a ridiculous and inappropriate statement. Some girls and women excel at all things mathematical while others struggle with varying success, just like other endeavors. The assumption that because a person is female, she must not have the mathematical aptitude of her male peers is, thankfully, not something I encounter often from people I talk to on a regular basis.

It's interesting, then, that I do hear things like these:

"Guys don't have feelings."

"Boys are slobs."

"Pfft, men only half listen when you talk to them."

And nobody really bats an eye. Except for a couple weeks ago, when I did. I tried to be polite about it, but it still felt a little awkward.

Why is it socially acceptable for women to make disparaging generalizations about men, when the reverse -- which, yes, also happens -- usually causes an uproar? It's a double standard, and that's not fair.

More importantly (because sometimes "that's not fair, so do the right thing" can be a tough message to internalize) disparaging men based on stereotypes won't fix anything. If statements like "men only half listen" stem from women's frustration about behavior of men that they've encountered -- and I suspect that's the case -- I fail to see how generalizations like that do anything to fix it. Chalking frustrating behavior to up "oh, that's just how they are" only perpetuates the problem, right?

Sure, there are plenty of men who aren't good listeners. There are lots of women in that category, too. But if it's generally accepted that men aren't good listeners, because oh, you know, that's just how they are... well, guess what? Men who don't listen well will just keep on keepin' on not listening well. That can't be the end goal for women who get upset when the men around them don't pay attention. If there's a wish for men to be better listeners, partners, husbands, and parents (and really, such a wish would be integral to ensuring equal opportunities for men and women, no?) maybe a better way to achieve that goal would be to expect more from them and assume capability, rather than setting bar at the lowest common denominator.