What Does It Mean To Speak As A Woman: nuanced discussion in New York Times

[arranbubonicplague]

The piece has concepts and ideas that I recognise but didn't realise had a name. E.g., "informational standing" and "managerial standing" have given me additional ways of understanding aspects of conversations and communication.

Suppose a man and I are having a conversation about recent events, and suppose I introduce one of my statements with “As a woman, …”

He knew that he was talking to a woman from the beginning of the conversation, but now, all of a sudden, I am speaking to him as a woman. What difference does this make?

It may seem to him that I am attempting to secure an unfair conversational advantage: Instead of asking him to accept my arguments on the grounds of their validity, I am asking him to accept them on the grounds of my status as a woman. To take the most extreme reaction, he may feel that I am bullying him, using him as a scapegoat to exact vengeance on the basis of some grievance I harbor toward some particular man, some group of men, or men in general.
...
Let’s distinguish two ways in which the expertise of a physicist might figure in a discussion of some question. First, it might allow her to introduce facts into the conversation that have bearing on the question. Call this, “informational standing.” Second, it might put her in a privileged position to manage the conversation: to determine who speaks when, how the question is pursued, when it counts as answered and so on. Call this, “managerial standing.”

www.nytimes.com/2018/12/03/opinion/what-does-it-mean-to-speak-as-a-woman.html

It seems like the distinction is maje between ‘an authority’ and ‘in authority’. Being an authority means having expert knowledge; being in authority is telling you to shut up.

‘is maje‘ = ‘I’d make’.

Not to self: preview.

Jesus wept.

Note to self.

I always assumed this was to denote that you are speaking from a specifically female perspective about something, rather than in some other capacity or in a general sense. Mainly to make a point about how something affects you because you are female?

Like if I had entered a profession with a low number of women and used that to my advantage to get jobs because they need to fulfil a quota, I would say 'as a civil engineer and a person who wants to earn money I'm happy that I have an advantage but as a woman I disapprove of the lack of women in STEM.'

I've never said "speaking as a woman"... But if I did I am not sure how that would make me a bully!

So "If I attempt to control a conversation based on the fact of my gender, I may be a bully, looking for a way to humiliate you. But I may be justified."

It-s a weird definition of bully, and bullying is never justified.

I always assumed this was to denote that you are speaking from a specifically female perspective about something, rather than in some other capacity or in a general sense. Mainly to make a point about how something affects you because you are female

Yes - and that something might be relevant. For example, friends were discussing where to go on holiday - he wanted an exotic destination that was not woman-friendly - she said 'as a woman ...'.

But I think the bigger issue is silencing - we must not speak 'as women'.

It-s a weird definition of bully, and bullying is never justified.

Authors rarely have control over the headlines of their pieces so, given the nuances of the body of the article, I doubt Callard wrote that and it feels like a rather crude summary of her position.

Ballard seems to be allowing space for the reality that there are bad actors out there who seek to bully and humiliate others by claiming a special standing in a conversation. However, the fact that a special standing can be mis-used does not mean that it always is and sometimes the use of a standing is legitimate. I think that much depends on the good faith of the people in the conversation.

I may be wrong because although the piece is well written it is fairly tricky in spots.

I'm phrasing this badly, but when men speak it carries automatic authority, so they don't usually have to say 'as a man', unless it is in relation to particularly female dilemmas - i.e sometimes on the relationship board here ... yet this authority is rarely questioned. Similarly, 'as a woman' suggests that there is a mainstream view (or as we used to say 'malestream' - and usually white, first world, etc.) and then possibly some alternative ones - including any that might be specific to women. Rarely is the default position critiqued as being 'authoritarian'.

We shouldn't ever have to say "as a woman ..." but I sometimes catch myself doing it.
"As a woman, I think one problem with public transport is the lack of safety, that you, a man, don't have to worry about."

It is far from bullying. It is, in fact, more of an admission of defeat. We should be able to say "Public transport isn't safe enough" or "There aren't enough public toilets" or "Dubai is a shithole and I refuse to travel there" and be believed.
We shouldn't have to say "Well, this is a women's issue so I am actually qualified to talk about it"

Really interesting article, that touches on stuff I have been puzzling over with regard to identity politics.

Clearly, personal stories can be very enlightening as to how a minority experiences the world, oppression...and they have a visceral impact that is important for empathy.

On the other hand, though, a problem arises when an individual says "and my experience tells me this is what must be done to make things better" and accuses you of disrespecting their experience and being xxx-ist if you don't agree.

The problem being that you may be very aware that other members of the minority group take a completely contrary view of what should be done. How are you supposed to handle this knowledge? How are you to "respect" two conflicting claims, both coming from members of the oppressed group?

It feels like the only answer is to withdraw from the discussion, and leave it to the minority group themselves to sort out their disagreements. But doesn't that just ramp up the fragmented nature of identity politics?

But doesn't that just ramp up the fragmented nature of identity politics?

I think this is why I find it a nuanced and tricky piece. It's why the section about structural injustice and inequalities in the conversation were well-argued to me. I certainly don't know what the solution would be but it's something of which I'd like to be more aware.

Perhaps the most familiar case is one in which systematic and entrenched forms of injustice have ossified group relations into ones of unequal respect. It would not, of course, follow that individual members of those groups were barred from showing one another equal respect — but it would also be plausible that, at times, strangers instantiate these ossified relations, even unknowingly

I'd like to see Kathleen Stock and others develop ideas around this. I think we need ways of talking with each other on contentious issues because it has to happen.

Late to this one. But if a bloke says something like "speaking as a man" it would be important in a context such as a convo where everyone is wondering how to end male violence he might say "speaking as a man, the insecurity you feel about not knowing for certain that a child is ones own, cannot be underestimated". I'd think fair enough since I would never be in doubt of whether I was the mother of the baby I pushed out of my vagina - I have no insight or meaningful understanding of what it it like to have that male insecurity.

Likewise I could say "speaking as a woman, the mixed changing provision makes me feel uncomfortable and threatened". If the blokes aren't a bunch of ignorant insensitive arseholes, they will think fair enough, handn't thought of that, too.

I can't see what the issue is.