Considering the amount of time I spend debating in the comments of my articles, I tend not to weigh in on other people’s very often. And much less often, on other people’s comments. But occasionally, I’ll spot a flicker of self-awareness so bright that I can’t resist trying to fan it into a flame.
A couple of weeks ago, I came across an article titled, I’m Not Afraid Of You, I Just Disagree. Two readers, Amber and Laurie, were disagreeing about whether a black woman mentioned in the story had been justified in taking offence at a joke.
Here’s the relevant passage for context:
I once made a crack about Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock, who grew up poor, one of twelve children, in rural Georgia. The senator is actually a year or two younger than me, and I myself come from a fairly large family with six kids. My wife is one of eleven. The Irish, especially the Catholics, are known for big families. […]
A Black woman I knew took offense, sure that my statement was racist. Why was it racist? Honestly, I have no idea, but I’m confident she felt attacked as if poor Black families were the only ones to have a lot of children or to have a cultural relationship with Jesus. A fairly absurd and insular mindset.
After a little back and forth, Amber made a point that was so beautifully expressed, and simultaneously so diametrically opposed to the stance she was taking, that I couldn’t resist chiming in:
Amber [in response to the original article]:
Why are you so offended by her offence? Why is she not allowed to be offended?
Laurie:
Because it's ridiculous. He comes from a big family. He joked about a big family. Grow up.
Amber:
You grow up. Realize that other people have different lived experiences than you. It’s incredibly arrogant to expect people to understand your circumstances and intentions and then not attempt to understand theirs. All he had to do was apologize and they could’ve talked it out. Instead, it’s just another angry white guy calling others “fragile” when he’s also being fragile.
Steve QJ:
It’s incredibly arrogant to expect people to understand your circumstances and intentions and then not attempt to understand theirs.
Sorry to butt in, but you so completely nailed it with this reply. I think you’re 100% right. But ask whether you think both parties in the conversation had/have a responsibility to do this. It doesn’t seem that you do.
Amber:
Speaking as a woman, we know how to maneuver around men's egos. We have to. And white men's egos are particularly fragile. So yes, I'm going to assume the Black woman has had to do years of understanding how men are, and how white people are, with very little of that awareness and courtesy coming back to her in return.
Steve QJ:
Okay, but here you're doing a bunch of mind-reading and narrative building for the woman whilst assuming the very worst possible of the man. And that's before we even touch on the question of "how men are" and white men's "particularly fragile ego's".
I strongly suspect you wouldn't accept people taking about women, black or otherwise, this way. I'm just baffled at how you justify it to yourself when you're talking about men.
Amber:
This feels like gaslighting.
The guy has written exactly what he did--he offended a Black woman inadvertently and instead of talking through with her why she was offended, he chose to huff away, offended by her offense, as though his offence is legitimate and her's isn't, and then he had to tell the world about it.
I mean, you can sit there and say that's not a steroypical white guy response, but can you really do it with a straight face?
For the record, if a white lady had huffed away, I'd call her a Karen.
“This feels like gaslighting.”
If I ever decide to become one of those tragic, alcoholic writers of yesteryear, I’ll just start taking a shot every time somebody uses the word “gaslighting” or “harm” or “lived experience” to deflect an argument they’re having trouble with.
I expect my liver to last for about five conversations.
Also, I don’t know why this still surprises me, but it’s worth noting that Amber is, you guessed it, a white lady. It’s incredible to me that tribalism has become so ingrained in some people that they stereotype themselves without a hint of self-reflection.
Steve QJ:
he offended a Black woman inadvertently and instead of talking through with her why she was offended, he chose to huff away, offended by her offense
Hmm, is the women getting offended the same as the man offending her? If I'm offended by something you say, regardless of whether it's reasonable to interpret it that way, have you offended me? I'm trying to get at the root of who is responsible for who's feelings.
Anyway, that largely philosophical quibble aside, what we know is that this guy made a joke about a large family and that this woman jumped to the conclusion that his comments were motivated by racism. I saw no huffing, he doesn't even seem to be offended, he just seems to be making the point that mind-reading about somebody's intentions, especially based on some immutable trait, isn't a reasonable thing to do.
Which brings us full circle. Yes, I can say with a straight face that it's not “a stereotypical white guy response”. I've seen white guys behave this way of course, just as I've seen black women assume racism when it's clearly not the case. But I wouldn't describe either of them as “stereotypical responses” for black women or white men.
Maybe, just maybe, we're all capable of being oversensitive and unreasonable, and pretending that only people who aren't in our demographic are guilty of this isn't a very productive way of addressing that.
“It’s incredibly arrogant to expect people to understand your circumstances and intentions and then not attempt to understand theirs.”
It’s still hard to believe that somebody who has the good sense to write this could so spectacularly fail to live up to it. But of course, it’s far easier to say things than to do them.
Too often, and I think this is true of everybody, we’re looking for people to understand our circumstances and intentions (or those of the people we sympathise with) but don’t expect the same understanding from ourselves. We’re comfortable with the assumptions and stereotypes we apply to others, but heaven forbid they should fail to see us as unique, complex individuals.
But this, in a nutshell, is the entire game; to hold ourselves to the same standards that we demand from others. To treat people with empathy, even if they’re a member of the “out-group”. To resist the urge to project our biases and fears onto those we disagree with. To genuinely attempt to “understand the circumstances and intentions of others.”
Sadly, for some people, this feels like gaslighting.
Another thing I noticed in the interchange - that tendency to project, either unconsciously or tactically.
I see the core of the "victimhood narrative" as being the concept that victimhood is valorized and is used as justification for more power over others; the more victimized you can portray yourself, the more power you get. But I see people on the side which seems to specialize more in this behavior, call anybody who criticizes or objects in any way "playing the victim".
Conservatives have used the term "snowflake" for what they feel are fragile children who will melt at the least offense. But now I see people calling any conservative who criticizes or objects in any way a "snowflake".
I'll skip other examples (like "fragility") and return to your post. Taking offense is also something which can be used to try to acquire power over others. Any criticism or objection in any way to that dynamics, is called "being offended" by it.
The pattern is - ignore the actual dynamics being asserted (victimhood valorization, snowflake fragility, offense taking as power seeking) and just (mis)-use the same word in the other direction. There is no way to criticize or object without being mislabeled as "doing the same thing".
It's a word game, it is not honest good faith engagement.
This reminds me that I decided over a decade ago to stop using the word "whining" to describe other people's actions, because I began to realize that absolutely any complaint, no matter how legitimate or wrongheaded, can be easily smeared and dismissed by labeling it "whining". If you say, "gee the weather is hot today" that can be called whining about the weather. If you say that the concentration of wealth and power among a small elites is alarming, that can be called whining. If you say you were told that the grad schools you applied for have no more positions for white men, that will be called whining. There is not way one can criticize or object to anything which cannot easily be reframed as whining. So now I very rarely characterized anything as "whining"; I find a more substantial characterization, rather than a all purpose disparaging slur.
(More recently, I also don't use "snowflake". And I question myself any time I might be tempted to say that I'm offended, and usually find a better what of expressing myself).
Alas, there are those who wallow in such tactics rather than choosing to avoid them.
Really liked this one!
Especially this part: 'I’ll just start taking a shot every time somebody uses the word “gaslighting” or “harm” or “lived experience” to deflect an argument they’re having trouble with.'
Oh boy come to SF and work at a nonprofit and be drunk before noon!