If a male was raised as a child by a wonderful, caring, and loving mother, then he should have no problem in respecting all females. However, if a man judges females by the good high standards of his mother, he may have different opinions about different females.
The same goes for females who were raised by a good father and a good mother and their high standards of opinions.
Respecting others is important. However, it is important to know the difference between “I think” and “I know.”
2
You left out what's in plain conversational sight: Society empowers men to speak with authority while limiting that same authority to women, for no other reason than their gender. Period. Men never have to preface a comment with, "As a man...." because they are already given conversational authority by being a man. Over the years, no, over the decades, I'm constantly impressed with many men's lack of compunction about defining my reality. This is especially specious when these same men ignore invisible, but normalized discriminatory attitudes that prevent women from having equal standing.
8
@cgtwet
If something is "invisible," as cgtweet defines it, then it is natural to ignore it.
2
I worked my way patiently through the circular logic of this entire essay. My conclusion: much ado about nothing.
9
"As a human, . . ." Has been good enough for this human.
4
Professor Callard: if a MAN did this....insist on his unique insight because he's male....would you not call it "mansplaining"?
And if so....isn't pulling out "the woman card" just "woman-splaining"?
How is it different?
6
@Concerned Citizen It's different because many men -- not all -- talk at women, over explain things women already know, never ask first if the woman they're speaking too already knows something about the subject in question, and interrupt frequently. With all due respect, you don't understand mansplaining because you don't understand -- or can't imagine -- how men so often think it's okay to devalue and diminish women through conversation. "As a woman," I have decades of experience of this happening....and decades of men clueless about it.
8
This analysis could apply to conversations between, for example, people with a given disease and researchers studying that disease and designing research protocols. I see this currently in the ALS community.
The premise here is that conversation is about the parties vying to dominate and win the argument. What if conversation were a collaborative effort, in which each party is seen as having something valuable to contribute? The lived experience of a participant in the conversation is one kind of information and someone genuinely interested in understanding an issue in all its messy complexity will pause to allow that perspective to be part of the colloquy.
5
Of course if you started that way then I would assume that you are a Philosophy of Feminist Studies Prof - you know the philosophical sect that thinks rational discourse is a symptom of the patriarchal plot to use sentential logic to enslave the distaff population.
But - of course you are not that kind of philosopher - so maybe don't open with that conversational gambit.
1
Afternoon crew missed it or just doesn't fit the NYT Cultural Marxist narrative? Once again:
This begins with "my sweet old etcetera" [e. e. cummings] "informative, managerial" [Callard]-- "Grant me this" [Euclid]: No.
Now, as to the biology demographics of the two genders and their unique voices, virtues, and points of view in any conversation mit physicist, engineer, artist, or stonemason: Yes.
4
"As a woman," is a biological clarification, a female of a certain age. It is not a social category and is free of connotations. It is neutral.
"As a man," is ripe with connotations. It presumes male virility, submission to the myth of male power and a perfectly reliable erection. It implies a stoic stance and a willingness to endure pain to prove self-restraint and self-mastery. It is not a neutral identity and comes from a sense of insecurity, for the god of male virility is impossible satisfy. It is impossible to be a man, for the test of virility is unending. It is not impossible to be a woman, for it's natural.
3
Your argument either makes sense or it doesn't. You either adhere to the highest standards of logic and evidence or you don't. Full stop. Your ethnicity, gender, sex, age, nationality, religion, class, etc. do not matter. (Which is why identity politics is so toxic.)
22
Conversations are voluntary. If one person insists on managing it, and the other person refuses, either or both can walk away. That is how they are equals.
A conversation in which one person claims managerial standing and the other person cannot refuse or walk away is not a conversation. It is at best a lecture; at worst an interrogation (eg, a "conversation" with the police).
74
A conversation in which a person claims managerial standing and their interlocutor cannot walk away - is called the Internet.
5
@Marlene Barbera
It used to be called a book (or a newspaper), and the author's managerial role ended when one closed it (or re-lined the floor of one's birdcage).
The internet has turned newspapers such as this one into conversations (such as this one). If the small "X" icons located at the upper right corner of the comment thread, article, website and browser all fail to extricate you, I would recommend CTRL+ALT+DELETE.
The Starship Enterprise will be able to "beam up" sticks and stones. Readers of the Times have yet to learn that trick.
4
You lost me at "instantiate". Is it really necessary for academic philosophers to use this kind of obscure vocabulary?
8
This begins with "my sweet old etcetera" "informative, managerial" -- "Grant me this": No.
Now, as to the biology demographics of the two genders and their unique voices, virtues, and points of view in any conversation mit physicist, engineer, artist, or stonemason: Yes.
Callard conjures an image of communication as a sort of card game: each person will throw down a fresh card - victimhood, race, gender, age, any demographic marker - to gain managerial superiority in the conversation. She clever!
3
Speaking as an expert in plant genetics, I once offered the fact that I had 17 years experience as such. Yikes, so you too have an opinion my interlocutor exclaimed! My, my.
4
So much brain power and verbal virtuosity applied to nothing. Glad I didn’t do a PhD in Philosophy.
4
@ett
A PhD at a top US program is one of the most difficult grad programs to get into - so 'glad' hardly figures into it.
Typically Rutgers has close to 300 applicants for 7 places by way of example.
as a woman, i am tired of men explaining things to me and i am tired of women defending them
1
Physicists don't advance their arguments by saying, "As a physicist..." They state their arguments based on evidence, not authority.
7
Just finished watching "Adam's Rib" with Tracy and Hepburn.
I couldn't agree more.
Enough said.
There is one sticky point on women commentators on TV that I must speak out about: Men do not speak fast but some women do. The latter I believe is unique to women but not to men. There are number of women on TV who speak immediately with what is playing on their mind without any pauses. I kid you not. Well presenting women is Senator Warren speaking in measured tones just as men do.
You may think this chauvinism view point but check it out.
I couldn't be more on equal terms with my wife.
2
So... you are justified in dominating conversations with those weaker than yourself, like trans women and middle aged white dudes who are sorry enough to get stuck listening to you. Congratulations on elevating the Karpman Drama Triangle to high art.
You minus well call out the role you are actually playing. Instead of "as a woman..." or "as a rape victim" or "as a member of the disrespected group"... just call it for what it is: "As a VICTIM, I am powerless and oppressed and unable to take responsibility for my problems"... Or, "As the PERPETRATOR, I sees YOU as the problem, and I find empowerment through dominating and humiliating in front of others...." Or, "As the RESCUER here, I champion these victims and enable their perpetual victim narrative to avoid facing my own anxiety and need for identity"
Could that be, simply, true?
And let's not let it slip that you oh so cleverly throw in a question of whether trans women have an experience worth listening to and respecting, ugh.
Also, I'm with the Physicists here - speaking as a Physicist myself, and one who knows many physicists, chemists, engineers, and such... No one talks like that because an appeal to authority "as a Physicist" doesn't impress anyone who isn't in the market for a quantum crystal infused magnetic yoga mat.
These things are tricky. If you want to unpack the problematic kindergarten of the social justice warriors, look no further than the Karpman Drama Triangle. Seriously, look it up.
1
I recommend Appiah's piece in the New York Times on this subject more broadly. It's more nuanced and insightful:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/opinion/sunday/speak-for-yourself.html
3
I’ve generally found that when people “speak as a woman” or as anything else, they generally overestimate their own specialized knowledge.
When people tell me that I, as a white man, don’t understand colonialism and racism, which they do understand because they are [fill in the group], I usually tune them out as ignoramuses.
However, when I care to engage, I tell them that my family came to America to escape colonialism, cultural genocide, and racism. And I can document it pretty well. Oops.
Women often womansplain to me the challenges that women face re-entering the workforce after having children, as if I, a stay at home father, cannot fathom these challenges the way a woman can. The true irony is that many of these womansplainers don’t even have kids.
I find that most of the time people who choose to speak as a member of a group lack the empathy and (frankly) intelligence to realize that A. Not every member of their group agrees with them, and B. What they think is unique to their group may actually be something that many people outside their group can understand and may agree with.
The really sad part is that this insistence on group specialness hampers building effective political coalitions across identity groups. Instead of welcoming people who have similar interests, we have resorted to turning every issue into an identity purity test.
8
"Speaking as woman" is something I would never say in the culture in which I live....Arizona. I would never been taken seriously!
2
As a woman, when necessary, I make sure my words are well thought out and clearly spoken. That creates an even playing and nullifies my gender.
2
Regardless of the intensive analysis here, I intuitively felt the message — speaking as a woman. Last week I was verbally assaulted by a man who took issue with my comment. He ranted and bellowed loudly in front of a small group of us until he felt he had affirmatively made his point —- that I knew nothing. I said not a word and sat quietly until he finished. Then his wife commented that she felt uncomfortable about our “argument.” I wasn’t arguing but was somehow lumped into his anger because I had somehow started it. Was I bullying to have a point of view that contradicted this man? Guess so.
2
The identity of the speaker should be of no relevance in any conversation. Appealing to your identity is, at best, an appeal to authority. That applies even if it's, "I'm a physicist and you're not." Is this to say expertise is useless? No, it's to say "show me." Put it in the conversation, rattle off some stuff I won't follow, cite some knowledge I didn't have. Don't show a sheepskin and pound a gavel. Give me something to check, send me off to do homework, and I'll probably defer to you for the time being if I am persuaded. What's the alternative to this approach? A world in which everybody just shuts up unless they're authorities. All conversation is shut down, everything is just received wisdom. Convince me you're an expert. That's what discussion is.
8
For example, perhaps we are talking about the use of alcohol in socializing, and I inform my interlocutor, speaking as a woman, that when you refrain from drinking, people often assume you are pregnant.
When I hear this statement, pregnancy is not on my mind. Since women cannot hold their liquor very well, I assume she has recognized this physical limitation and is taking care of herself.
1
By culture and biology I always accept the fact that a woman can speak as a woman and pretty much anything else she wants and I as a man will pay attention because I am preprogrammed to pay attention. I may discount what she says for a variety of reasons and certainly I will not accept that she speaks for all women anymore than I speak for anyone except myself. Expertise and other factors may give a person credibility when they speak but it does not make them right or wrong and we all have the right to disagree or question. There has been a move towards totalitarianism and limits on who can speak and what words they can use much like the wars over thee and thou. Every totalitarian wants to silence anyone who disagrees, after all when you are holy any doubt is the devil's work.
6
The writer seems to lump together conversation and argumentation, but they're very different - and teaching is another bag altogether. The defining hallmark of conversation is equality. If you're trying to get someone to accept your point, that's not a conversation - that's an argument.
Now, as any rhetorician or college writing teacher can tell you, strong arguments use the rhetorical triangle - ethos, logo, pathos. Logos are the words / thought / the argument. Pathos is the appeal to the emotions. Ethos is what Callard is talking about - we believe the argument because of who the person is and the situation in which that person is making their argument. One's gender may or may not be a part of that ethos, but because it's such a common trait, it hardly qualifies as sufficient proof to win an argument.
Examples of situations in which we cede authority - e.g. to victims of violence - happen in conversation, in which the stake are different and perhaps lower. In a situation where the outcome matters (e.g. government policy), I wouldn't cede authority to someone based solely on their lived experience, just as in the classroom, I wouldn't allow a student to make a weak argument simply because of who they are.
7
Speaking as a person who is not a philosopher but has studied philosophy I happily grant managerial standing to Ms. Callard. The back and forth between "when" and "if" is the playground of philosophical inquiry.
3
What I gathered from this article has little to do with differences between men and women, men and women as subjects or objects, but rather the nature of the environment in which the arguments between men and women are taking place. The author here is talking about men and women on the surface, but the both are embedded going by this article in a horrifying, suffocating, corporate, business/legal jargon world where personal identity is downplayed as much as possible and people argue about apparently work titles (managerial standing) and the power that comes from it, and...well, I really have no desire to even enter this world to really examine it.
The modern world no matter inequalities or equalities of wealth (economic discussions and solutions) seems a world dedicated to removing all challenges in which an individual can excel and instead everything is framed to be tackled by groups of people, and the conversation must always be kept middling regardless of size of middle class which satisfies mediocrities whether they emanate from the left or the right or from wealth and poverty and because no honest determination is made as to individual worth of person the entire argument descends to the empty scheme of discussion of power titles to be applied to people which no one at heart really respects because everyone knows no system is actually being implemented to know whether anyone is really deserving of these titles. It reminds me of the military when no one is tested in war.
4
Mitochondria by the by.
Female all the way. Every one’s.
So all humans speak from a female power source.
3
I appreciated the writer giving words to a question I've always had: Do trans women have "managerial standing" to speak as women? It an uncomfortable question, and hard for me to put into words because I do accept trans women as real women. At the same time, late-transitioning women, who for years passed as men, just flat out do not share with me the struggles of growing up female in this society. Just as I do not share with them the struggles of growing up trans in this society. If they passed as male, they did not truly grow up female in terms of their standing in society and their relationship to men. Instead, they grew up trans in the sociological sense. The idea of "managerial standing" helps me understand my own question.
7
@Sylivawe all speak for ourselves and if we are lucky our voice will be heard and understood and maybe accepted. The first step is to speak
Sylvia, what is a woman? If you take away all the cultural norms, markers and stereotypes, you will realize than transwomen are not women but males who prefer to conform to societal and cultural norms, markers and stereotypes associated with women but they are not women as part of the definition of a woman includes biology and the natural accompanying genitals that goes with XX ir XY (yes, there anomalies but they are exceptions and outliers) And so far, there is no scientific proof as to a chromosomal, biological basis for gender dysphoria as there is for homosexuality. As much as they would wish, and no matter how much we would like to believe it, biology is a pivotal part of being a woman.That is why a transwoman can have a "managerial" voice for transgender issues but not for women's issues as they are not women because to be a woman, you have to be a female. Just like you and I could not even remotely pretend to know what being a transgender woman is or to speak "managerially" about it, the opposite is true too. Your post just told you what you rationally already know: transwomen are not women.They are males.
3
So if I say I’m speaking as a man, the listener should accept that I legitimately represent the completely homogenous universe of men, that no men think differently or have beliefs contrary to my own; and that should any men who have the temerity to disagree are to be disregarded as they have no right to think or believe contrary to my stated positions.
Talk about arrogance and irrationality personified !
Additionally, if a woman can claim she speaks for the hundreds of millions other American women, I have the right to stereotype all women too - after all, once we accept there are no variations amongst the hundreds of millions of women, both speakers are free to express there knowledge of these homogenous groups.
6
@William Hayes
No where in the piece did the writer say that "speaking as a___________" means speaking for all people who fit that category. You have misinterpreted her point.
6
@Stephanie Wood does not having children make females more whatever or better. Men make sperm but you do not see it but the process is just as complex as pregnancy
@Sylivathen why say speaking as a woman since it is obvious she is female or considers herself to be
I'm good with it, but I expect the same respect when speaking as a man -- straight, white, and middle class. We good?
10
@KM Of course you can say that you speak as a person who has never personally experienced oppression, and who's perspective as a straight, white, and middle class man has already been grossly over represented—and yes, with the admission of those realities, we good.
@KM: hahahahaha.
No.
You must admit your "privilege" and apologize for it 24/7.
I am breaking a rule to never comment on an article without reading it.
To read it would be to break another rule. I do not attend to people who “Speak as a a —“. I am interested in the thoughts of people, not identities, not parts, not fragmented self-limiting souls. Life is too short to waste.
What it means to “Speak as a woman” is that we don’t speak.
3
@KBronson So if the conversation is about pregnancy, and a pregnant woman says "Speaking as a woman..." where she has unique insight (which as a man you never could have, for now at least), you would feel offended?
I think context is everything and absolutes of any kind if what discourages conversation. There are times when saying "speaking as a man" or speaking as a X" is appropriate.
4
@RamSso if we are speaking about young men involved in whatever they are involved in - speaking as a man should take precedence over any other opinion? How about just speaking, just exchanging thoughts without the gender caveat - personal experience will out and be taken as what it is, a personal experience .
@KBronson
It would have been better to read the article first. If you read it now, I think you’ll conclude that you’ve done the author an injustice.
By the way, the teaser below the title is ambiguous and may have unnecessarily put your back up, as it did mine. Here it is:
“I may be a bully, looking for a way to humiliate you. But I may be justified.”
I took the second sentence to mean, “But I may be justified in bullying you, etc.” However the body of the article makes it clear that the meaning is “OR I may be justified (and not bullying you, etc.).”
Titles/headlines and teasers are presumably written by someone other than the op-ed authors. I often find that they set me up to misconstrue what I’m about to read, perhaps partly because of space constraints.
2
I have an easy time agreeing to the idea that managed conversation can be necessary and productive. But I have a hard time believing that a managed conversation can be fully satisfying to any of the interlocutors, since the conversation is still taking place under the presumption of reified relationships that render much of what’s relevant to the conversation inaccessible or off-limits to the participants. Ultimately, a managed conversation can serve as an expedient means towards enabling free conversation but not a substitute for it.
The goal of a managed conversation, then — and the measure for its success — would have to be further conversation on more equal terms. Of course, the actual equality of interlocutors might never be achieved. But only when interlocutors are able to presuppose (idealistically, even counterfactually) mutual equality and respect can real conversation begin. Unless managed conversation is functioning as prep work oriented towards this goal, the managers will feel like they’re carrying out still more uncompensated emotional labor while the managed interlocutors will have a hard time overcoming the sense that the conversation might as well not be taking place at all.
4
If I'm not just any physicist but a Nobel-winning physicist, in say quantum mechanics, consider how it would sound to another physicist if I prefaced my comment about a tricky question in quantum mechanics by saying:
'Speaking as a Nobel winning physicist...'
Surely, the other physicist would assume that the Nobel Laureate was speaking tongue in cheek, being deliberately pompous in order to self deprecate. Perhaps the Nobel Prize is a longstanding private joke between the two, etc. For examples, Feynman and Einstein were were well known for their modesty and playful humour.
Whatever the back story, no physicist would take such a self-proclaimed claim to expertise seriously, and I doubt if any Nobel Laureate would ever make such a claim, unless perhaps in the most extraordinary circumstances, exasperated and provoked beyond self-control.
Of course, if somebody were a Nobel Laureate in physics, specialising in quantum mechanics, then most of us lesser mortals including me, a mere ex-teacher of physics, might feel overawed and rather diffident about openly disagreeing with his or her comment about quantum mechanics – even if it were untrue.
This last raises another issue. We do take into account authority when assessing the validity of a person's assertion. We are more likely to take an expert opinion seriously if it's made within his or her field of expertise than a non-expert opinion, even if the former is incorrect and the latter is correct.
6
When you qualify yourself, e.g., referencing your experience, you weaken your standing in the conversation. You're telling the listener that you're not sure about the merits of your argument and therefore need to strengthen it with your qualifications.
13
@Gabe I agree generally, but this is not so in a court of criminal law or of civil law in common law jurisdictions, which relies heavily on the opinions of experts, who are expected to introduce themselves to the court by declaring their experience, qualifications and expertise.
6
@Colenso And yet the jury is not compelled to give weight to those qualifications. At the end of the day, everyone has to persuade to be believed, and can't just play the authority card.
2
@Gabe
No--just helping out: "Speaking as a structural engineer, I think that wall you're about build is not the right design, but, dude, it's your house. Then, again, your neighbor's suggestion--the "journalist"/NYT Opinion Kingdom writer--is a good and trusted friend, right?"
There are many genres of conversation, but neither the “no-holds-barred argumentative warfare that is the bread and butter” of academic philosophers nor conversations where someone claims managerial standing interests me all that much. Perhaps I am too skeptical of what seems to be a bit too much underlying earnestness in this quest for truth.
I’d rather shoot for Buber’s ideal: “When I confront a human being as my Thou and speak the basic word I-Thou to him, then he is no thing among things nor does he consist of things. He is no longer He or She, a dot in the world grid of space and time, nor a condition to be experienced and described, a loose bundle of named qualities. Neighborless and seamless, he is Thou and fills the firmament.”
5
I was relaying a conversation that I watched on The View this morning. The women were discussing what would happen if you were stranded somewhere in your car without GPS. Whoopi mentioned, "First, you grab a couple of hands of sand and if someone comes at you, you throw it directly in their face." All of the women knew what she was talking about. When I shared that story with my husband, he didn't understand the need or even thought about loading up both fists with sand. He's thinking about maps, changing tires, etc. I told him, "As a woman, when we are stranded for whatever reason, our first thought is always about self-protection." As a man, he didn't have that frame of mind.
24
@Julie
Not sure how valid that is--"that frame of mind": Cultural Marxist dogma--no difference between the genders--i.e., gender biology is propaganda.
@Alice's Restaurant - Religion is propaganda as well.
The reality with neuroscience is if you hear or experience something over and over, you believe it to be real, whether or not it is.
1
@Stephanie Wood This is a great example of the difference between women and men out in public and the level of risk.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45337810
I'd appreciate more explanation of Callard's claim that the expert replacement test fails when applied to considering the managerial standing of someone who says, "as a rape victim." This thought experiment seems to beg the question and perhaps distract readers from following her subsequent argument.
Maybe Callard better needs to explain why and how managerial standing (MS) is distinct and can be "demographic all the way down."
Part of her argument seems to be that MS is possessed by or owed to an interlocutor when there is some inequality between interlocutors in which the difference exceeds or is other than a difference in possession of information.
Callard gives "structural inequality" as potentially providing such a case. If structurally unequal, conditions of conversation are unequal from the start and not because of an achievement of either party. In that case, the person speaking "as" a member of a subjugated demographic group would then not be analogous to the physicist we intuitively recognize has MS to teach physics (a misleading analogy?). She would be someone, as Callard later says, giving voice to the inequality that is already there but obscured by the assumption of equality had by the member of the dominant demographic.
But if that is the claim, then is not a fact of structural inequality only knowable as an achievement of research expertise? Then the expert replacement test would apply.
How exactly could MS be demographic all the way down?
My style of expression will not be as sophisticated as that of Prof. Callard. But I hope what I have to say will be read and judged on its merits rather than its style.
The phrase "as a woman...", or similar such phrases for other demographic groups immediately raise an alarm bell in my mind. The question immediately arises, "Does this person talking to me think that she or he speaks for an entire group? Does this person have a right to claim this authority? Does what this person says truly apply to the entire group?"
In general I am not inclined to accept unquestioningly that kind of authority in the usually casual situations in which such a phrase, "as a woman...", typically arises.
"As a conversationalist", I encourage those of you reading this and considering using such phrases in your own conversations to think first before doing so. You may find your ideas better received by keeping them at a personal, individual level, and not claiming for them some kind of broader truth.
With regard to people trained in the "hard sciences", such as myself (structural engineering), I still encourage the same. Were the subject of, for example, building collapses to come up in conversation, I would cautiously proceed as follows.
"You may already know I have an advanced degree in that subject. As I learned it, typical causes for a collapse would be", ... such and such. In other words, I would underplay my personal position of authority and bring attention to the technical facts.
8
@J Jencks
As I responded to another commenter, when I speak as a woman, I am only speaking for myself. I do not consider myself to be a self-appointed authority or speaker on the subject. The only thing that's certain is that I'm not speaking as a man.
Like you, I am also a structural engineer with an advanced degree. I have life experiences related to being a female structural engineer that I can talk about with some authority. But, I know even in this limited case, I would not be speaking for every female structural engineer.
Further, I became an engineer before affirmative action and sexual harassment guidelines, so I also add that info into conversations if it makes sense to do so and if it will enrich the conversation. Again, I know that I do not speak for all women engineers old enough to be pre-affirmative action.
But, if a structural collapse comes up, I don't beat around the bush. I say, as a structural engineer I've looked at the info available, and this is what I think.
As a structural engineer, my opinions come with a level of expertise, experience and authority that I have no desire to downplay. I'll explain my arguments in a manner suitable to my audience, acknowledging that it's my own opinion and there may be others until a definitive determination of cause can be made. If my audience was you, I'd be happier because we could kick our ideas around in a more meaningful way.
Sometimes, it's actually okay to know things and have opinions.
8
@J Jencks
How is " you may already know I have an advanced degree.." different from "speaking as a structural engineer"?
2
@CF Then shouldn't it be,"Based on my experiences as a woman," which leaves an opening for another conversational participant to question or probe those experiences or their applicability. Instead saying "Speaking as a woman" removes all details and implies that there is a single value and meaning to being a woman. A variable has been placed in the equation that will change the meaning of the equation.
1
Interesting stuff. However, in admitting any sort of 'managerial status' in her own conversations, the author is arguing for power, not intellectual authority. Ultimately, that's not a conversation, it's a teaching session or a polemic run by the power-holder. But power is disputable-- as the trans/lesbian identity conflict shows.
I respectfully suggest a change in Prof. Callard's discourse. Not "As a woman, I..." but "Speaking from my experience..." If the professor looks like a "woman," why, that says it all. If her interlocutor is honest, he'll know what she's saying, or ask, if it's not clear. Also, beware of claiming to speak the truth of an entire class of people.
20
Having taught Dr. Callard physics some twenty years ago, I appreciate her physicist examples. With regard to her essay, it was written ( anonymously) on the website thephilosophersmail.com:
"The search for better conversations should begin with the question of what a conversation is ideally for. And here two basic functions suggest themselves: confirmation and clarification."
"The official story of what life is like leaves out a daunting amount about who we really are. Too much of what we feel can’t normally be disclosed for fear that we’ll be humiliated or cause undue alarm or upset. Our envy of colleagues, our disappointments in love, our true feelings towards our families, our embarrassing habits and petty fears, our wilder political daydreams… little of this ‘silent normality’ has the chance to be discussed; until we find ourselves in a good conversation, by which is meant a conversation that – artfully, without prurience or judgement – manages to confirm the fundamental acceptability of hitherto carefully guarded emotions and ideas."
There are always logical constructs when it comes to hierarchical discourse depending on circumstances. Philosophy( both moral and ethical) still have a role in teaching not just how to have civil discourse, but how to form logical conclusions. Something that seems to lacking these days when discussing "facts" and "truth"...both of which are philosophical and logical constructs.
Well written Dr. Callard!
3
@Jw "Too much of what we feel can’t normally be disclosed for fear that we’ll be humiliated..." relates to an interraction about "feelings," not ideas. They're not the same thing. If you're "feeling" humiliated by an argument that you yourself can't win on the facts, or on the reasoning -- that's an invitation to leave the argument, not an excuse for losing it.
1
The problem of course is that the topic of discussion where someone is trying to claim managerial standing is rarely a discussion of the experience of the disrespected group but rather a discussion about objective reality.
For example, an African American may enter a department store and get a lot of attention from a security guard and use that to say aha I was discriminated against. However, that experience being objectively an example of discrimination (as opposed to feeling like discrimination or even being experienced as discrimination) is dependent on other parties. I (a white man) have been followed by security guards when in high end stores.
In other words, when we let experience and demographic qualities trump rational discourse and honest comparison of multiple narratives, we resign ourselves to never finding objective truth. Similarly if a woman wants to discuss her experience of being a woman, she is absolutely in a position of power to tell that experience. However if she is trying to make an objective claim about whether or not women receive the same quality of health care as men, her gender does not make her a compelling subject matter expert - particularly when there are other more objective data sets available.
4
If you want to lecture someone "as a women..." just write an Op-ed and email it to me. I'll read it with an open mind. The exchange of information will be quick, and you won't have to assume the arduous duel role of being a moderator.
You can even send me a pop quiz afterwards to ensure I read it.
4
I can’t see much difference between someone speaking “as a woman” and “as a physicist.” Both phrases point the listener toward a fuller understanding of what follows. There has to be something more added to this simple formula to raise the possibility that the speaker is a bully, or is taking an unfair conversational advantage. If you really believe that some things about being a woman are incommunicable, why should I bother having a conversation with you at all? Christening this defeatist attitude with the benign label “managerial” is just another form of bullying.
4
I "speak as a woman" or programmer or geek or mother now and again - and all that is ever meant is that this is an experience I had that is unique to one of those roles. Not that I speak for all women, not that my point is now unquestionable - just that I have some experience or knowledge relating to that role.
Sometimes people - who are reasonably gun-shy - are too quick to assume that "As a _______" is a claim of authority, persecution, and managerial status in a conversation, rather than just information.
Men have their own unique perspectives, and when someone is "speaking as a man" and even (gasp!) "speaking as a white cis-gendered (honestly, couldn't someone have found a less clumsy term) male" - their experiences and knowledge is just as useful and relevant - and just as subject to question and discussion as my experiences and knowledge are.
12
I have absolutely no problem with the idea that you may have a perspective that allows you to "Speak as a woman" and that this gives you a unique insight at on any number of things.
The problem is that all too often these days "I am a woman and you are mansplaining" seems to be justification enough to avoid legitimate debate and assume a position beyond refute no matter if this position is justified or not.
5
"If you are having a conversation about rape with someone who says, “as a rape victim,” her claim to managerial standing, unlike any informational claim she might make, will in no way be undermined by the presence of a rape researcher."
I don't think this necessarily follows. When a person is raped they are not endowed with perfect judgement to determine who should speak on questions of assault, how the question is pursued and when it counts as answered. They are given experiential knowledge about the sensations/physical reality of rape - informational standing. The idea that a rape survivor automatically becomes a rape educator trained to manage or facilitate productive conversation is unsupported. A rape researcher, who professionally manages academic conversations surrounding rape, is likely a better 'manager' of productive conversation than your average person with a life bigger than surviving rape.
7
Once we all agree on the fundamental axiom of identitarianism ("White men are always wrong"), philosophers, academics, and the world as a whole will finally be at peace.
7
Dear Professor Callard,
I'll make a deal with all conversationalists: I shall feel free to speak as a thinking being, and they can feel free to speak howsoever they wish.
Cordially,
S.A. Traina
4
"Speaking as an x" is always managerial. A physicist will only say "speaking as a physicist" to add weight to an opinion. Physics otherwise deal in facts no matter who says them. When I state facts about medicine or psychiatry — even facts about my own professional work — I am not "speaking as a psychiatrist." I am just speaking for myself. I'd only consider using this (haughty) preface if I wanted an opinion of mine to carry extra weight.
Different kinds of managerial standing are conveyed by the same "speaking as an x":
"You don't know what it's like to be a victim."
"I went to school a long time, so believe me."
"A whole army of likeminded people agree with me."
And so forth. Regarding the last of these, philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah wrote a NYT op-ed in August called "Go Ahead, Speak for Yourself." It makes the sound point that we don't speak for groups, we speak for ourselves. More about this:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sacramento-street-psychiatry/201809/we-are-one
5
@Steven Reidbord MD
Simply not true.
You may choose to take it as managerial, but that doesn't make it true. I "speak as a programmer" to explain that I am seeing a different perspective about a bug, and when explaining it, I am not excusing it, just describing how another programmer might have made that mistake and failed to find it. I "speak as a woman" - most recently here on this forum to state that not all women believe stereotyping men is any more OK than stereotyping women. It's not a claim that all women think as I do, nor a managerial assertion that no one else can claim women stereotype men in negative ways.
2
@Details
I could also say that "not all women believe stereotyping men is any more OK than stereotyping women." It would be just as true as your saying it; the information content is the same. The only difference is the extra weight that speaking as a woman grants your utterance. Since that extra weight isn't informational — it passes the "expert replacement test" — I'm forced to conclude it's managerial.
Whether invoking managerial standing is odious or wholly justified is a completely different matter. A political one, I'd say, depending on whose ox is being gored.
4
Such an annoying tendency for people to speak "out of " some arbitrary and manufactured identity.
There is no such thing as "speaking as a woman" when women of different types will disagree on just about everything, as will people of every other identity group. It's offensive -- essentially, sexist -- to assume that "speaking as a woman" means something, because the very phrase is dismissive of the heterogeneity of the group 'women" and the vast diversity (diversity, remember -- something that the left used to value? ) within the group "women" or any other artificial identity group.
Tell me one thing that someone will assert "as a woman" and I can find another woman who believes the opposite. Which one of these is "speaking as a woman"? Either both are, or neither is. The left seems to prefer the argument that one of these women is really "more" of a woman than the other, because her views fit their narrative better -- this extremely offensive view is nothing less than the very bigotry that identity politics was ostensibly created to overcome. No one is more of a "real woman" than another woman (I am not including MTF transgender individuals in the group "women" because they are in fact not women) and no one is more "black" than another black person.
We can sometimes speak as those who've had certain experiences, but not all women have had stereotypically "female' experiences. When it comes down to it, we can only speak as individuals.
7
@Oakbranch It's not about asserting the position on behalf of everyone - I don't get why people misunderstand this comment in this manner* but that just reminds me to be more careful and say "in my experience" which is what I take it to mean. If a pregnant woman wants to talk to me about some aspects of her pregnancy "as a woman" I'd be fine if that phrase were used.
* That would be ridiculous - who can claim to speak on the behalf of all women or "all X" where X can be anything?
1
@RamS Because when you say "speaking as an X" you are implying that "X" has some specific quality, value and description. For that to be true, all X must have something in common other than just being "X"--Xness has to tell us something other than mere Xness. It's a variable that has a specific value it can be cashed in for. Admittedly, X doesn't have to be just one value, it can be a range of values. But being X and being in that range are still being implied to be synonymous. When you speak as a woman you are saying there is something that all women have in common.
2
Biology. That is the only thing all women have in common.
1
Why not be specific instead of saying a trite, generic phrase like, "speaking as a..." If we're talking about having honest mutually beneficial conversations then bring out the details.
I can't remember the last time someone used "speaking as a " when I spoke one-on-one with them. I can remember moments when I've over-stepped my expertise on a subject while discussing it with a subject expert and the person has mentioned politely that they have some special expertise. I like that; it keeps my foot from driving all the way down my throat and then I proceed to ask them more questions about the subject and I get to know the person better.
1
Professor Appiah wrote a very similar Times Opinion piece this August, with 675 resulting comments, q.v. I don’t see this one adding anything substantive.
Incidentally, I’m a physicist, and can’t think of any instances where colleagues used this particular preface to a comment. It’s simply inapplicable. Pick a different category.
5
I could see someone preface "speaking as a physicst" if they are in mixed company and the physics perspective is one that frames the discussion in a different light. For example a phycicist and an engineer looking at the same problem may frame it in different ways and in discussion it's sometimes helpful to discuss these assumptions and perspectives built one's worldview.
2
@Marat 1784
Yeah, using physicist as an example struck me as odd, also. If people are discussing medical practice or illness, I can understand someone saying "speaking as a doctor." Or, in my case, if people ask my opinion on a construction problem, say the pedestrian bridge collapse that occurred in Miami a few months ago, I have no problem with saying "speaking as a structural engineer." In both these cases, we'd be speaking from an applied science viewpoint.
The only example of "speaking as a physicist" I can think of is when Rick Perry said the laws of physics apply, just not all the time. Then, I can see a physicist saying, "speaking as a physicist," you're incorrect.
Otherwise, yes, I'm hard-put to think of examples.
Regarding Professor Appiah's piece, I see this op-ed as an attempt to show examples of when prefacing a remark with 'as a whatever' might be appropriate and might add something meaningful to the conversation. Professor Appiah's tone implied that people who preface a comment by defining themselves believe they are speaking for all of that kind. A self-appointed spokesperson. I objected to that implication, as that's never my intent. When I do that, I am just speaking from my own life's experiences whether it be as a woman or a structural engineer. It's only to provide context.
The two articles, together, have convinced me beyond all doubt that engineering was a better course of study for me than philosophy would have been.
4
@Marat 1784 Because a physicist speaking to another physicist as colleagues would never need to preface a comment and that isn't Professor Callard's point. It would be in situations in which a physicist is speaking to people in a non-professional environment.
Tenditious and philosophy, I would hope, are two different things.
Take for example this laundry list of popular cliches:
“Perhaps the most familiar case is one in which systematic and entrenched forms of injustice have ossified group relations into ones of unequal respect.”
Here are a list of grounds in that laundry list that I can demographically contest based on the western philosophical enterprise. And being educated enough to know some U of C graduates.
Who defines and judges:
Systemic
Entrenched
Forms
Injustice
Ossified group(? Oh lord oh lord)
Unequal
Respect? Who?
And on what grounds have these self proclaimed experts earned authority to judge and FIX AS CONSTANTS UNIQUELY KNOWN TO THESE GROUNDS?
take the most obscure cheat
“forms”.
At the University of Chicago (a great books founded institution is it not?) do they teach about Plato, forms, the neo Confucians and forms, and so see problems of this usage? (Or that men are raped?)
And is this expert able to exit conversation to speak authoritatively in an unequal relationship with her audience (not her choir) on forms?
No. What she writes in itself disqualifies her from this position. She abuses the privilege by ignoring the issues.
Are there female professors of philosophy who are qualified?
You betcha. Most want nothing to do with tenditious fads that distract them from their true work.
Can I discuss the source and value of these terms and their use? Yep. Better than the writer and I am no expert.
2
@In deed
The word you mean is "tendentious," I'm guessing.
While you're looking things up, try "Dunning-Kruger effect."
One of the best sentences I read all year is this one:
"Appealing to your identity is a reason to discount what you say, not a reason to pay extra attention."
9
As a woman, I resent the idea that gender or skin color or religion magically confers expertise on any topic. Identity politics will never hold any rhetorical validity.
14
@Byrd
It is all part of a rhetorical device to effectuate and legitimize a power shift. This is more subtle than the memes circulating in the 1980s concerning Dead White Males. I really cannot imagine Adam Smith or David Hume actually taking the position that the authority of their ideas stemmed from them being white or male. Their authority was based on the strength of their arguments.
3
@Rick Adam Smith and David Hume didn't have to say, "speaking as a white male" because it was implied by their being allowed to speak at all. So it was there. "Speaking as" seems to function to exclude from the conversation all those who don't get to "speak as".
I didn't know the University of Chicago allowed women to speak as women. I assumed everyone was asked to speak in the cis white male capitalist identity that is the heart of their institutional mission.
7
Having just come from an op-ed discussing the how gender reveal parties have no place in modern society...
I am going to lie down for awhile so my head stops spinning and figure out how to actually approach gender, sex, and my own masculinity in a modern society.
Speaking as a dog lover, of course.
9
I would define the “Speaking as X ...” pattern as a way of saying “What I am about to say pertains specifically to knowledge/experience I have as X”. This seems to me like a completely logical and valid thing to say to the extent that it sheds light on the thing the speaker wishes to communicate, its importance, and the credence that the listener might be inclined to give it. Other than that, the statement confers no special privileges on the person using it, so I completely don’t understand what the writer is referring to when she talks about “managerial standing”. Frankly, in my opinion there is no such thing.
As for “Speaking as a woman ...”, I am not a woman, and even if I spent many years studying the “science” of being a woman, while I will undoubtedly know many facts about women, there will still be many aspects (particularly emotional ones) of the experience of being a woman that remain completely inaccessible to me. So again, I think it’s a completely reasonable thing for a woman to say when I’m speaking to her, as long as she is using it out of a good-faith desire to open my mind to facts and/or a point of view that I may not have considered before.
Disclaimer: I’m not a philosopher...
5
@Math Professor
And vice versa?
Nah. It is one directional.
@Math Professor
"Disclaimer: I’m not a philosopher..."
Speaking as a female programmer.... this is likely why you looked to have a simple resolution, rather than running in circles overthinking a simple phrase and turning everything into power dynamics....
1
I think someone should send this to the President, but then he wouldn't read it (first, because it's from the NYT; second, because he doesn't read unless he has to), and even if he did, he'd take that 'managerial standing' to new heights, and claim he knows all this already, while at the same time refuting it and all others' claims to any standing...
1
Thanks for telling us something most who live in the world and have conversations with humans pick up by third grade. And in 3,000 words or less.
Of course it is appropriate to say “as a man” or “as someone from New York”
or “as a parent of twins” or “as as a black cop”. Such calls the listener’s attention to the fact the speaker is about to give an experiential insight into a point the speaker feels is relevant, interesting, and something the listener might not be aware of or truly appreciate based on the listener’s demographic standing. And?
Thanks for confirming that rushing through college (to get immediately to law school) wasn’t a mistake.
5
You’re right.
If you’re talking to a person versed in a subject, you can claim ‘as a X …’, as in if you went to a banker for investment advice and he/she says ‘as a financial advisor …’, or ‘as a cop I can tell you, don’t go there alone…’ or ‘as a taxi driver, the fastest way to Kennedy Center is …’
But more often than not, the statement ‘as a x …’ is used when the argument is being lost, and the race/gender/etc card is put into use to belittle and intimidate the other in ways they cannot defend themselves.
I’ve been in conversations that were being lost, then someone went ‘well, as a woman …’ and if you’re a male, anything said after that proves you’re a brainless imbecile who should hold his tongue as you’re too stupid to have an opinion. And the night turns into this awkward silence that not even more drinks can rescue.
That is also true of using the race card. As in, I am Latin, but I see things very different than a lot of Latins, I cannot go and say ‘as a Latin …’ and give an opinion valid for all Latins in this world, knowing well that I see things in a way my extended family won’t for example.
Would be a lot better ‘in my opinion …’ – as that is your opinion, and it does not reflect the entire group of (insert group, gender, ethnicity, etc here).
That way we know that is how you feel, and that’s that.
Every one is entitled to an opinion, but putting others down in ways they cannot win, is just a surefire way to start a fight.
4
I personally have a problem with this since, though no proof of it by professional degree except in regards to AI, computer science, robotics and human brain, I do tend to read/study about what I talk about. So, if a feminist speaks "as a woman" to me, I might well have studied more of texts then her and so might rather just stick to rational argument about facts and suppositions rather than dealing with your perspective which is with high probability, anecdotal.
Now, most people are idiots, so in general I get it. Your limited anecdotal universe from which you've drawn nonsense conclusions, still exceeds what the other guy learned from porn and bar jokes.
2
As a woman I find it hilarious when men try to mansplain things like menstration, or pregnancy.
If you are talking to an idiot, it doesn’t matter what you say, they will remain ignorant. If you are talking to someone sensible, you can just ask them what they think.
1
What does “managerial standing” add, as a viable category, to “informational standing” combined with ethical norms and the facts of social psychology?
Suppose I discuss being a large rough-looking working class teenager being subtly trained to face military service, a hard job at the plant or factory, and, if I get out of hand, prison. Or suppose you discuss what it’s like to have your analytical abilities disparaged because you’re a woman, or the burdens of pregnancy and mothering small children. In each case the listener responds dismissively and with derision. Then we can say the responder is an idiot for not respecting informational standing, a jerk for being derisive, and a heartless jerk if there’s reason to know trauma was involved. What does “managerial standing” add?
If it is a viable category, how do you determine when it applies? To take your example, woman as conversation manager, male bashing has been generally acceptable in America for about 45 years while similar speech about females has been proscribed; women can seek an education and career according to their talents and interests; and women I know well have yielded the point when I disagree that gender stymied their career in some specific way because they agree, after discussion, that we’re actually in the same boat. If this isn’t enough to falsify the factual basis for managerial standing, what would be enough?
"Arguments from one's own privileged experience are bad and reactionary arguments." Gilles Deleuze (from "Letter to a Harsh Critic").
1
funny about the issue of "speaking as a woman" - why shouldn't a woman be listened to as a woman, even on issues like banking and international policy. if we really think it makes no difference we have not lived in the real world.
4
Speaking as a woman? C'mon. Unless you are speaking about uniquely female issues, such as menstruation or pregnancy and childbirth, what qualifies a woman to have authority on a topic simply because she is a woman?
And while philosophers can't always "choose their conversations", I can choose not to have one with any of them - and do.
4
As a straight, white, male screenwriter who writes predominantly women's roles (am currently writing 3 studio movies all with female protagonists) I am pulled into this conversation all the time.
I am rarely applauded for taking women's lives so seriously that I devote the bulk of my creative work to writing them, rather I'm usually criticized for unfairly appropriating women's stories, even though most of the stories I write and characters I create are original rather than adaptations of existing work.
What I usually say is you certainly can speak AS a woman, but you don't speak for ALL women. No more than I speak for all men, or all New Yorkers.
To suggest there is a "woman's" point of view on any topic (Abortion, Trump, Soul Cycle) is to greatly diminish their experience as singular, when it's anything but.
6
@Sparky
Well, that explains why so much dialogue is just asinine and unrealistic. Most movies are not really written for or about women.
2
@Sparky you think you should be applauded for writing about women in a respectful/accurate/nuanced way? As opposed to disrespectful/inaccurate/simplified manner? On behalf of all women, THANK YOU! You have seen us humans, and for that, we are eternally grateful! I can't wait to be disappointed by whatever films you make written for the male gaze
7
Not to mention sex scenes every 2 minutes. When movies or tv have women having sex after pretty much every strong emotion or situation, I know that was not written by a man.
The comments are worth reading. The original essay could and should have been more concise. What is philosophy these days anyway? We now have better models of the physical world than anything the ancient Greeks came up with. We are now approaching the point where biology and genetics are informing us of our behaviors. We certainly have more of substance to discuss. What I interpret from this essay is a desire to be taken seriously with an appropriate amount of respect. If one respects an individual's comments and experiences as meaningful then how does group identity add any further authority or validation?
5
Speaking as a man, I expect that when a woman says, "as a woman," that she is going to tell me something that comes from her perspective and experiences, which as a woman are different from my experiences as a man. I look forward to the stories to be told.
As a man, I know that there are things I do not inherently understand from a female perspective. I welcome the opportunity to learn, and appreciate that I am not always going to have useful insights.
However, as a human, I expect that I am able to learn some measure of understanding, and that some things that are figured as being about women only or men only are actually applicable to humans as a whole. I don't expect this to always be the case, and I am ready to learn from my mistakes.
It's not always easy learning, but it is often rewarding.
24
The only time you can usefully speak "as an..." is when you are representing someone with their consent, as in "As Ms. Smith's lawyer...," or when you have a warrant to speak for a group, granted by that group, as in "As the representative of the Blatherskite Society...," or "As the committee representative for the sixth district..."
Any other use of that formulation is illegitimate. It assumes the right to speak for people who have given you no permission to do so, and to represent your views as theirs. If I were to say, "Speaking as a middle-aged bureaucrat," I'd be assuming the right to place my views as, at least, typical of that group, which they may or may not be.
I doubt that the author's views represent those of most women, at least she has given me no evidence that they are. Why not just say, "In my experience," or "from what I know?" This is much more honest, and less likely to be taken as an attempt to claim an unjustified moral warrant.
24
@Kit Well said.
2
It means, "Of the joints and bars and towns in this world. She had to walk into mine"-Casablanca
I don't care what they say as long as they say it with a womanly accent and not sound like a man.
@the shadow A "womanly accent?" You mean, like, uptalk? Asking questions instead of making statements? Throwing a lot of descriptive words in there? Speaking softly and in a high voice? Baby talk? "Oogly-woogly?" Never challenging your expertise and authority, and smiling and nodding even though you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about? Or is there some accent from Womanland that I don't know about?
1
Brilliant. Feminism has now progressed to justify womansplaining. It's ever clearer that you want the entire pie.
9
@Steve M Yes we do! Be afraid - be very afraid!
1
@Steve M
This is in no way a parallel to mansplaining. Mansplaining is when men assume that the women around them don't know basic information and dumb everything down for them. When people start a sentence with "as a woman", or "as a black man", or "as someone dealing with chronic illness" it's a reminder that the speaker has first had experience of things that the listener may not be aware of. I don't know why some men are so threatened by the idea that sometimes they have to listen to learn about other people's experiences. I have no problem as a cis-woman admitting that I don't know everything trans people go through and asking questions rather than steamroll conversations and make assumptions.
3
@Steve M, at last you have grasped the frustration of being on the receiving end. I think our job here is done.
4
It means "This conversation is over."
9
I can’t see much difference between someone speaking “as a woman” and “as a physicist.” Both phrases point the listener toward a fuller understanding of what follows. There has to be something more added to this simple formula to raise the possibility that the speaker is a bully, or is taking an unfair conversational advantage. If you really believe that some things about being a woman are incommunicable, why should I bother having a conversation with you at all? Christening this defeatist attitude with the benign label “managerial” is just another form of bullying. It is like saying “I am the manager of this topic. You’re just an employee. So shut up.”
5
Speaking as a trans woman-
I can "speak as a woman" talking of the man coming on to me on the bus, or at work, feeling invasive. That is simply from my experience. My experience is very slightly different being abused in the street as "whore" or "slut"- for me, there is some relief that at least the abuser has not seen me as a trans woman.
There have been trans women for thousands of years- why would Deuteronomy proscribe something which does not exist? We are in all sorts of cultures. In Britain we have been discreetly accepted in women's space for fifty years, though discrimination law in the Equality Act permits us to be excluded where necessary. And now Kathleen Stock and others want to roll back our rights. We are regularly monstered in the press, with Rupert Murdoch's London Times publishing four articles a week trying to make us look bad. Anyone would think trans women are the great threat to Britain, rather than Brexit, and the hard Right fomenting hatred.
Speaking as a trans woman, I do not want anyone's oppression to be minimised; and I want my own to be recognised.
5
@Abigail Maxwell I can (and do) recognize your oppression as a trans woman. But being oppressed as a trans woman is very different from being oppressed as a biological woman. We need to respect rather than erase these differences. If Roe v Wade is overturned in the USA, this will not affect trans women's bodily autonomy. Instead, it will threaten the health and safety of millions of biological women, especially poor women of color. Female biology is every bit as important an axis of oppression as being transgender, and both should be taken equally seriously.
8
@Penny White I am indeed not going to get pregnant; and Prof. Stock is in England, where abortion rights and access are unlikely to be restricted, though Northern Irish law is restrictive. I am glad that Rape Crisis and Woman's Aid are speaking up for trans women- they welcome us in their services- and we have lesbian allies such as the chief executive of Stonewall, the main LGBT charity and campaigning organisation here. Possibly a poststructuralist philosopher would be more professionally inclined to see our point of view than an analytic one. I am culturally a woman, generally accepted though with greater difficulty getting better jobs than other women. The issue in Great Britain is whether we should be excluded from women's spaces where we have been for fifty years (in my case for twenty years).
1
And yes, there are certain spaces you will be excluded from: the OB/GYN office for starters and there are others where women have ought long and hard for it where biology will have a huge influence: sports.
1
"Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost"
"In finance, the overarching impact can be, in essence, gender segregation."
2
@R. R. Or jail time
@R. R. Good! Women are less likely to make dumb risky investments. People will catch on to this and start investing with women-only firms.
3
Thanks, this is really very clarifying (despite the series of misunderstandings in the Comments section below).
The informational vs. managerial distinction is helpful. Only philosophers think this way, god bless them.
One point. You acknowledge that the managerial role doesn't always go only to victims of structural oppression--e.g. disaster victims.
But wouldn't we feel OK about giving a managerial role to anybody with a particular experience we don't have? So if somebody says, "speaking as someone who works in retail, let me tell you about XYZ." I'd be happy to do that.
Or even someone who says "Speaking as a white man..." A peson in that position might have some insights--about his upbringing, about the kinds of things other white men say to him, etc.--that a non-white, non-man might like to hear the unvarnished truth about.
Of course the secret of juggling all these conversational roles--equal, informational, managerial, what have you--is something most people sorely lack, benevolent tact.
9
@Jim
Actually there's nothing clarifying at all in this essay, save the author's support for women speaking managerially. perhaps the history of domination by men of most societies explains that desire, but the great arc of history is towards equalization, not the replacement of one dominance by another
3
@Jim - Yes, as evidenced by the emotional and often hostile tone of many of the comments to this article. It's sad to see people miss the point and then double down on their lack of comprehension with anger. That does none of us any good.
5
As a gay man, I’d venture that there is really nothing of importance that I could say that would coherently sum up the wildly disparate experiences and points of view of the group I belong to.
So, as a gay man, all I can really speak for is myself.
41
@Kevin Walsh - Thank you! And I'm sure what you'd have to say would be very interesting and worthwhile, on its own merits.
4
Informational makes sense. Some of us will have a perspective that others cannot have - in fact, all of us do.
I'm not a fan of managerial. I'm a woman - that shouldn't give me a right to control a conversation and say other perspectives are invalid if those perspectives are well informed by people with experiences, knowledge and demographics different than theirs.
4
I think it's kind of a trite preface, in the first place.
7
In today's heightened climate of identity, wouldn't it be a really lovely experience to have a conversation with another human being during which we just enjoyed what the other had to say?
Professor Callard's notions of conversing seem to border on underlying confrontational or hierarchical arrangements as a subtext to speaking with others.
Speaking personally (ah...now there's a different approach!), I would rather just listen to others as to what they wish to share with me, and then respond to them because I care a lot about our being together in conversation.
9
Let’s not lose sight of the ultimate purpose of philosophical conversations: it’s to further the conversation so that it just keeps going around in circles in a never-ending loop! Speaking as a philosophy student, it is a privilege to join in on the fun that started with Thales and Socrates two and a half millennia ago. And the thing about it is, no one manages the historical conversation ; some people have their day in the sun, then it’s another’s turn, and so on.
Speaking as a concerned citizen, I see a tear in the fabric of overall conversation. I see an attempt by formerly higher status individuals, aka white adult Christian males, to regain their status at the expense of formerly disrespected groups such as women, black and brown people, refugees, religious minorities, and the disabled. I believe that we have, in fact, made some moral progress in the last few hundred years by continuing to have this ethical conversation. But now we are faced by extreme political polarization, and so a wish to break the conversation in favour of disaffected groups reasserting dominance. It's a battle for control and the stakes are human civilization. It continues to be a worthy conversation.
4
My fundamental disagreement about arguments from demographics is that they are inaccessible to anyone not already of that demographic as an incident of birth. As a man, I cannot readily have the experience of being a woman, much less the personal experiences of my interlocutor, so there is almost no way to rebut such a personal appeal. All such an argument does is demand that one side unilaterally surrender. At least with a physicist, if I felt strongly enough, I could go a research the claims or verify them myself, but that route is virtually impossible when demographics are the subject.
I would also disagree slightly with the nature of the claim being made when a person asserts that their membership in a particular demographic is grounds for any kind of authority. Instead of comparing it to claiming to be a physicist, which implies study of a field whose findings are independent of the experience of any individual, an analogous claim is closer to being, "As an individual who experiences the effects of physics."
7
@James Reed
If the author intends to argue from THE experience of being a woman, she will serve interlocutors by indicating WHICH experience of being a woman is in her mind.
1
All physicists share a common background of knowledge and assumptions that all women do not. Saying "As a woman" is no more authoritative than saying "Speaking for myself."
11
@David Frieze
I don't think you know enough physicists - nor enough women. There is no common set of assumptions nor even knowledge - even when you get into some pretty tiny branches of specialties of physics.
Whether physicists or women, there are many things they do share as knowledge that others who have not studied do not - and many things they disagree about and knowledge they do not share.
6
Wow! Finally an good argument for claims of conversational precedence based on identity.
The first part is the division between a claim of expertise about the topic and a claim to manage the flow iof the conversation. This is new (at least to me), and illuminating. For instance, it applies to all situations where experts try to persuade the rich and powerful; who is such situations should manage the conversation?
The second is that socially disadvantaged should be allowed to manage conversations about their status since this is the only way on which an actual conversation can take place. I could not discern the grounds for this. I'm guessing it is about the possibility of persuasion. Is a true conversation one in which each side has a good (or even equal) chance of persuading the other?
Going back to the beginning: what was Socrates claim to manage conversations, his know-nothing wisdom?
5
My humble advice to Professor Callard is to keep her conflictedness to herself and not to converse with others. "Silence is golden", but a strange social custom requires to make conversation with one's neighbors seated for an invited meal.
2
Speaking as white, middle class male, I find nobody defers to me about anything. In fact, in many conversations, it is a strike against me, and a justification for denying me any expertise I might have on a sensitive topic. Just tends to be the way it is.
Speaking as an attorney, I have learned that when I find it necessary to preface a statement by indicating "I am speaking as an attorney" I probably am not gonna convince the listener of anything. Just tends to be the way it is.
24
Because for thousands of years, your voice was the only voice heard and even now, it is still considered the default authority.
1
I recently posted a remark on what I thought was a gender-neutral forum, without any bias that I am aware of, and was blamed for using the fact that I am female (my name) to gain an advantage, and also blamed for what he described as:
"I’m familiar with the rules the man must live with. They start with the one that asserts that the woman is always right. I’m riddled with the bullet holes as proof of this."
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. But at least I'm not trying to Live While Black. My close acquaintance with a number of less advantaged people of color shows me that I walk largely free compared to the wary minutely observance they need to survive.
14
I don't find 'speaking as a woman' good for much, I rarely hear that phrase, but 'as a mother' is used for everything from CEO-hood and flying space ships to divining the psyche of rats and roaches...I would really, as a human, like to NEVER again hear the phrase, 'as a mother' especially spoken with that particular brand of arrogant ignorance that goes with it.'
39
@Grace Thorsen Often, the opposite tends to be true, especially in settings where white "Christian" men still dominate --managerial positions in white collar fields. "As a father," "as a husband" (although not uttered in that exact way) is a signifier that the speaker should be given greater deference because they're speaking 'on behalf of' another or a group, or those more vulnerable, and hence, there is more at stake, the speaker has more at risk. Even when the actual subject matter has nothing to do with anyone's standing.
1
@Peg I beg to differ. I cannot in any circumstances imagine a man saying 'as a father' or 'as a husband', in an opener to any office conversation - or really any conversation. Just doesn't happen, in my world. I don't think it happens in the Christian world either - they are much more likely to say, as a Christian, than as a father..Really! Men do not say 'as a father'' or 'as a husband'
...They just don't..Illuminating in itself - I think that status is implied and/or assumed, AND inferior to their status as a wage-earner..
2
Amen, sister. Amen. I really have to bite my tongue when I hear that phrase. I can’t recall my mother using it once.
1
When you say, “Speaking as an x,” you shut down conversation with anyone who isn’t an x. You’ve just erected a barrier to understanding another person—and people, if it is possible for an individual to speak representatively of her or his grouping. It may be true that we can never really understand people who are not like us in a “significant” way, but this has led to very bad social consequences in the past.
9
@Ed
Actually, it doesn't feel like a barrier for me. If someone said "speaking as an X" to me, I know I am about to hear someone speak from a life experience that I do not share. I find that interesting and I am usually curious. If it shuts down conversation, it is less about the words "speaking as an X' and more about the tone and delivery. In which case the words hardly matter. The attempt at a power game will shine through anyhow. If you say "Speaking as a person from Old Field, NY." I will find that interesting.
3
As a man I would never speak "as a man" because I already know that I do not represent anyone else. I know that I disagree with the vast majority of men, and the vast majority of women. It has way more to do with specific knowledge and life experience than some vague philosophical blathering which have little basis in reality.
I don't find that the majority of people are good in any way, least of all those who are sophists intent on convincing others of the righteousness of their own convictions. Certainty of philosophical view exists only in fascists.
4
Are you reinforcing a gender stereotype when one prefaces a statement "as a woman." Do all women think alike or have the same reaction or response to an issue? Or are you assuming that all women think alike because you are a woman and have formed an opinion on a subject? Are you claiming that you speak for all women? Whenever my wife asks me whether "all guys think that...", I inevitably respond that I have no idea. People are individuals and women don't have an unified opinion to any subject so why is prefacing "as a woman" stating anything?
18
@Christopher Rillo
Women are not all alike, nor do they all have the same opinions... but we are likely to share common experiences... we claim "as women" to be able to speak to those experiences and our personal, individual reactions to those experiences. If you haven't lived those experiences, it's hard to take your opinion on the issues that lead to them with the same weight.
9
I would never utter the phase “speaking as a woman” but I certainly would utter, “my experience as a woman...” a very different and I would say a more inclusive conversational device. Men might never feel the need to say “in my experience as a man...” in conversation because we still live in a world where that is the base starting point. We speak of female artists, female CEO’s, female politicians—until we either stop doing this, or define everyone by whatever the relevant modifier is, I will continue to communicate with the people I interact with from the unique experience of my gender, as well as the unique experiences of my life. Working alone with a succession of male mentors from an early age was nothing short of wonderful for me, certainly not a common experience for most women, so how could I ever say “speaking as a woman” it is meaningless.
27
"As a nonbinary person," I find it very telling about language norms that even in an article speaking about gender representation in speaking, you use gendered pronouns to reference a person of unknown gender, rather than the gender neutral "they/them/theirs".
"Someone with personal experience of a natural disaster might not to be able to speak on that topic without getting emotional. Allowing that person to manage the conversation may make it possible for him to be as rational as he can be, under the circumstances."
2
Gender is "known" based on outward markers that society recognizes, including biology. The number of people who prefer not to have a society-defined gender is still very small while the majority of the population are gender binary therefore language is going to reflect that. At this point in human societal evolution, the great majority of people do not have a problem using he or she and is therefore the default. If you do, and prefer to use the plural, then point it out and move on.
1
My wife usually prefaces her statements with: "In my experience," or, "so-and-so thinks." I will often ask her what she thinks about something, always being aware that, unarguably, she is a woman. When I make statements, I will usually preface them with, "In my opinion," or "so-and-so says." We rarely find reason to deconstruct our conversations in terms of gender, each being aware that there are viewpoints that are influenced by our physiology. Respecting these differences, we manage to have some lively debates where neither of us feel threatened. I realize that in a less intimate setting there is a greater likelihood of having ones intentions misapprehended; yet it would behoove us all to eschew appointing ourselves as spokesperson for any group or class without making it clear that we are expressing our unique interpretation of, or opinion on the subject under discussion. Beyond that, it is helpful to actually listen to what is being said, rather than organizing our response based on our reaction to an unfelicitous phrase.
Speaking, that is, as a human being.
5
All I can say is, "wha'?" Speaking as me.
24
Ms. Callard, when you begin conversation by claiming a certain status first, you're assuming your listener is ignorant of some or all of the factors of the status that you hold. You've already read your listener's mind. This only hinders open and academic discussion.
11
And isn't that normal? We are not all knowing of every other person/group experiences of knowledge. Based on your assertion, you should be able to give advise on how to minimuze menstrual cramps or what works best during childbirth or what I need to do after being raped. Not even male OB can. ust like I can't assume I know about premature ejaculation or living with the expectation of always being tough and strong.
1
This article explains my unsuccessful conversations with friends who do not share my experiences "as a survivor", "as a woman", "as someone with graduate degrees", "speaker of multiple languages", "writer of counterpoint", "technological ignoramus", and other aspects of identity.. We reach across a chasm using the rope-bridge of mutual need, with all the danger and satisfaction implied by the word chasm. In spite of my intellectual compromises ("internal groaning") I maintain warm relationships with friends who remain strangers.
3
"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."
Yea, that's pretty much why people object to it. The argument should be evaluated independent of the speaker.
X = Y, and Y = Z, therefore Z = X, if you say it again as "Speaking as a woman, X = Y, and Y = Z therefore Z = X" nothing changes, the identity of the speaker is not relevant to the arguments strength.
Now, make the argument not work. X is not equal to Y, and Y=Z, therefore Z=X. Then again we add "as a woman". As a woman, X is not equal to Y, and Y=Z, therefore Z=X. Adding as a woman does not bolster a nonsensical argument.
Teaching people to take the argument as being independent of the speaker is one of the best ways to fight bigotry. If one accepts that they must evaluate each argument on its merits, not on the perceived legitimacy of the speaker, they are more likely to take seriously many more peoples opinions than they might otherwise.
21
@Mark I think the ask is to consider that this person may have had a different experience and therefore would like to introduce a new dimension. The "as a..." provides a context for the introduction of that experience.
It doesn't mean, "shut up stupid people, I have the only valid viewpoint here and it's right because I have two X chromosomes"
It means, "Those views are interesting, but there is a whole other perspective which I have, which comes from this specific experience. For example, when Y happens, often there is another phenomenon, Q, which we haven't even discussed. And that causes a chain reaction of A, B and C. And although X is not equal to Y, X does follow from C.
We haven't looked at that dimension but as a woman, that's the bulk of my experience with Y, Q, A, B, C, and X and I think that it's important to look at it from that perspective."
Now you might ask, why mention "as a woman"?
That's a great question, I'm so glad you asked about my perspective.
The answer is, if you simply start talking about poverty, childbirth, breastfeeding, or racism, people are liable to tell you "but that isn't really the point--we're talking about the common experience."
The default experience becomes the "undefined" or "assumed" viewpoint.
Who's viewpoint is that? In academia and ethics, it's frequently that of a rich male, probably European.
That's fine with me, but sometimes it's worth pivoting the discussion to ensure that we aren't missing important dimensions.
Most of the comments that I've read here so far seem to take the point of this piece as being directed toward listeners--those who are spoken to by someone who is "speaking as." I think it applies at least as much to speakers as to listeners.
As a speaker, don't assume that "speaking as" automatically grants you special authority. Conversely, if you have special authority, be prepared to assert it in more specific and substantive ways.
For listeners, you don't necessarily have to cede managerial authority to speakers who simply claim it. On the other hand, when someone has genuine authority, you're probably better off respecting it.
I think that all of our conversations will be better if we can do these things.
12
While I agree with the gist of the article, there are some issues with the whole "speaking as a woman" line. The first one is that speaking as a woman is so broad, that it is attempting to claim some special knowledge or to use the writer's term, the managerial authority, being based on a woman, but is that necessarily a real claim? The reason for that is quite simple, women come from a variety of backgrounds, so an upper class woman would come from a position very different than a working class or poor one would, so is she really speaking for all women (by the way, it isn't any different for men in that regards, either). Even when it comes to gender specific things, like for example being a rape victim, someone from a poor, inner city background is likely to have a very difference experience than a well off women would. I am sure Professor Stock cited in the article would argue that trans women didn't have the same experiences as cis women, but the same is true of things like race and class. The other thing is it is used as bullying even when not meant as such, if some incident happens and someone comments on it from their perspective, with the idea of talking about it, and someone says "Well, as a woman, I find that horrible", it implies that the person who had a different perspective (man or woman), is horrible if they thought differently, it is why it needs ot be used with care...and not used where gender or whatever is irrelevant.
8
You are right- women are not a monolith.
We share nothing universal except our female biology that renders us the only creature capable of producing human offspring- we also have smaller stature, less muscular development and less heart and lung capacity.
The only meaningful way that women are all the same- is the same and only way in which we are different from men- biologically.
2
Speaking as a man, and a physicist, I find myself wishing that the author had chosen another analogy. Physicists as a group, by definition, have studied a fairly well-defined curricula, and to a large extent agree on what is (provisionally) agreed upon by physicists ; what is uncertain, and what constitutes normal methods of approaching problems: data gathering, hypothesis formation, testing, and revision.
I don't want to "speak as a woman" because obviously I'm not. But using the logical analogy for me, I'd also be very hesitant to "speak as a man". I think that group is much too broad a category me, or anyone, to speak for accurately.
Perhaps I could speak as a relatively affluent, middle-aged, white, educated, progressive, scientifically educated, straight, easy-going . . . man (in the early 21th century), but I'm sure I'd be significantly less accurate at representing the views of (say) a poor, young, black, high-school drop-out, gay, conservative, . . . MAN.
I have similar thoughts whenever I hear a sentence beginning "X think this", or "X believe that", where X are "men", "women", "Republicans", "Democrats", "Americans", "Canadians", i.e. wow, that's a big group of people you're assigning that view to.
So, with the exception of some pretty narrowly defined biological topics my reaction to someone starting a sentence with "Speaking as a woman" would be some variant of "By what authority …"; "Who elected you to …"; or "Are you sure your view is representative ..."
60
I'm pretty educated and manage conversations when I can, though as I get older I'm happy to be conversationally managed. Additionally, I must say her whole point could be reduced to three paragraphs. Whatever happened to the "soul of wit"? You know, brevity. I think this article demonstrates why being a philosopher is not a highly pursued career.
24
Prof. Caillard does an excellent job of distinguishing between informational standing and managerial standing.
The two actual examples she gives of legitimate managerial standing--"as a rape victim," and "as a victim of a natural disaster"--are based on one participant in the conversation being traumatized: an extreme situation, in which basic compassion requires other participants in the conversation to tread carefully.
But on this basis, Prof. Callard builds the crux of her argument: that if one's group is disrespected, even unknowingly, then "an unequal conversation is the only sincere, honest way forward."
Notably, this is the one point at which no example is given.
Here's an alternative: Disrespect should be called out, not by trying to take over the conversation managerially but by openly stating the information that corrects it. And anyone with the opportunity should do the stating.
So if someone says, "You know, women don't really have a head for mathematics," it's the job of anyone with a conscience to respond, "That's a false stereotype." Including me, a man. Whether or not any particular woman is even present.
7
"Being a physicist gives a person a certain standing in conversations that have something to do with physics. So why shouldn’t being a woman give me a certain standing in conversations that have something to do with gender?"
Because being male (or non-binary, or whatever else) is also a gender. This seems so obvious it's surprising to me the author doesn't appear to catch on to it.
I mean if the point is that one's status can give a special insight fine...but that applies to men just as much as it does to women. In different ways, perhaps, but just as much overall.
The very implication that "gender issues" are "female issues" is I think at the root of the problem here. It shouldn't be the case that when it comes to "gender," half the population has some greater right to speak than the other half.
10
@A
My problem with "as a woman" is the danger of assuming that the the individual speaking "as a woman" is speaking for all women. Whether by the speaker, or by listeners. Intentional or not.
Having said that, on the likes of these forums, i do sometimes state that i'm female, or registered Independent. Because we're not face to face with each other around these parts, sometimes if i don't state it, the asumption is often otherwise.
1
@A: At no point did the author suggest that men should be denied the opportunity to speak as men--you made that up. Speaking as a man, I would say that I don't believe that sort of argument represents men very well. I think we should try to do better than that.
1
@Stan Sutton
She suggests that being a woman could give "special standing" in conversations about "gender." It seems extremely forced to try to say "well, she didn't say men might not also have special standing in conversations about gender!" If everyone has "special standing," does anyone have it? It's only "special" if it isn't possessed by everyone.
I think the answer here is that when she said "conversations about gender" she meant "conversations about women." But that's a dangerous conflation to be making, and a philosopher should be more careful with her words.
Speaking as a man, it looks like I just got womansplained
80
As a straight white man. This seems like a convenient way to silence me in any debate about any topic that could touch on anything you decide might be Identity related.
60
@Brian: And as a straight white man, you seem perfectly willing to adopt the same form of argument. You don't have to accept it when anyone else does it, just as no one is compelled to accept it when you do it.
5
Speaking as a _____, while helpful for the listener to understand more about the speaker, does not alleviate the burden of that speaker to provide sound evidence and logic, when making assertions or putting forth an argument in an attempt to persuade others.
Without sound evidence and logic backing up any claims or assertions being made, this is nothing more than an appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam), a logical fallacy.
41
We can speak as women, but there will still be photographs of half-naked statues carved by men at the top of our articles.
122
@C There are women who sculpt and paint and draw half-naked--even entirely naked!--statues and pictures.
10
@C The photo appears to draw attention to transgender, the purpose of the article on managerial claim.
1
@Cnd the photo was taken by a MAN, no less. The horror.
7
As a man, I can say the assumed reactions of how men behave are an example of a double standard in stereotyping that women employ that is alienating those who count themselves as "allies" (not my preferred word, but it seems popular enough) to women while emboldening the true misogynists.
See? Wasn't "As a ____" an ineffective way to make my point?
For the most part, male behavior is pretty much similar and easily predicted. Particularly for groups of two or more men. That’s not stereotyping, it’s learning from ones experiences.
@Mister
Actually - no, not ineffective. It's not wrong at all to say that "as a man" you find the stereotyping employed by (might I note - SOME) women a double standard and alienating. That is a very correct thing to say, because you are providing a view of how this action comes across to a man.
As a woman, I would not find that ineffective nor irrelevant. I might say the same - and have - when stereotypes about men are used in conversations between women - but when I do, my statement is a hypothetical statement of my belief about what men might feel, where yours is a statement of what you DO feel.
1
@From Where I Sit
Doesn't seem you know that many men well. I don't know many - but those I do, none of them fit perfectly into the stereotypes, and many don't fit ANY of the stereotypes about men.
2
I'm not really sure what the point of this article was. It reads like an attempt to reconcile the ideal of open debate on the merit of ideas and the current trend of couching ideas in the context of demographic identity as an appeal to authority. If you have a shred of intellectual integrity it's obvious which of the two fosters open, honest debate and which one exists to shut that debate down. What does a self-described philosopher stand to gain by throwing up barriers to open discussion? The only conclusion I can draw is that this is a piece written in service to the politics of the day rather than in service to worthy ideas. Which says all that needs to be said about modern academia, really.
41
I believe this is a claim that women, who are different than men biologically, may actually have a managerial claim over the discussion of what a woman is.
Maybe trans women should not feel they have managerial claims on conversations about womanhood or feminism, since those are the bailiwicks of biological women?
And while trans women have elected to travel and live in our bailiwick, they may be welcomed and included but perhaps have overstepped in insisting they have managerial claims to feminism that override those of women.
14
@Marlene Barbera
Actually, I believe that the claim may merely reduce to the idea that there is a category "not-men" whose members should have managerial claims on conversations about not-manhood, etc. But, if the category is simply the complement of the category "men", it's hard to see why men don't also have a managerial claim.
The argument works in the other direction too: involving the categories "women" and "not-women".
This is very different from the categories: "physicists" and "not-physicists"; since, the category "not-physicists" is so wildly heterogeneous as to have no useful defining properties apart from being a complement.
But, perhaps the categories "women" and "men" are also wildly heterogeneous.
3
@Marlene Barbera - So there are 2 classes of women, and one class should not have managerial claims? To what else are they not entitled?
1
Writing as a woman philosopher, Callard is not bad.
Writing as a woman, Callard is not emotional.
Writing as a philosopher, Callard is not rigorous.
Writing, Callard is not succinct.
27
Speaking “as an academic,” I fail to see that Sandor’s criticism is valid, and would need supporting examples. To me, it seems more like an attempt to misdirect the conversation or to disparage the writer without engaging her arguments.
Women claim to be forced to preface a statement with “as a woman” because in their view men couldn’t possibly understand their point of view. Naturally, they will invariable leave said conversation misunderstood/unheard/under acknowledged etc because it’s already been decided that the other can’t comprehend this position.
Furthermore, starting a sentence with “as a woman” invalidates and precludes any disagreement with whatever follows
But as a man, I don’t know what it’s like to be a woman, so maybe this is necessary after all
4
I marvel at the constant refrains from the gender that never stops talking: "being heard" and "finding my voice."
8
If history is a guide, this comment will continue until you stop to consider what the problem might be.
3
L from Seattle wrote:
"When I speak 'as a woman' I am talking about the past experiences I have had (childbirth, being treated as a woman) not the structure of my brain."
Absolutely. Brava!
Learning and knowledge are gained from many fields, including one's life experiences. (See, for example, the answers to Jackson Katz's question, "What do you do on a daily basis to avoid being sexually assaulted?" Men: "Nothing; I don't think about it." Women: 34 separate actions.)
https://www.scoopwhoop.com/what-men-and-women-do-to-avoid-sexual-harassment-twitter-thread/#.5ylbkgrf8
This has nothing to do with the efficacy and efficiency of one's brain. Rather, it demonstrates experience and accrued wisdom.
9
And we have arrived at the most diminishing of returns in this pointless semantic debate exercise. This is sadly where people end up squawking when they have grown less regard for actual people than the trivia churned up in their e-devices.
2
Regarding whether trans women have 'managerial standing' to speak as women: Catharine MacKinnon said not long ago that if a person is living life as a woman, then of course their perspective can bring value to discussions of women's issues. (I paraphrased the latter. But I feel MacKinnon was pretty emphatic on the point.) MacKinnon's arguent is hard to refute. For one, a transgender woman certainly can experience sexual harassment on the basis of either appearing or being female, can't she? You think I wouldn't want a trans woman to, say, bring suit if she brought, say, quid pro quo or hostile environment sexual harassment charges against an employer? Nope. I want her to sue the employer for every nickel it has.
3
@Ben Graham's Ghost
Yes, MacKinnon has argued that IF a man transitions to living as a woman, THEN she has some claim to being treated as if she is a woman.
So, consider the example of a young man in Alberta who changed his legal sex in just to get cheaper car insurance but continues in all other respects to live as a man. MacKinnon isn't saying he should be counted as a woman (even though he legally is one) and Kathleen Stock is arguing along the same lines. For society to recognize a transgender woman as a sort of woman, there has to at least be a meaningful transition to live as a woman.
And then the question is, what is it to live as a woman? That's not an easy question to answer when the only thing all women have in common is their female biology.
1
There is an additional problem with "speaking as an X."
While one's membership in a demographic category ("X" in this case) may provide some experiences and perspectives that generalize to all or most members of that group, at the end of the day each person speaks of their own anecdotal experience as an X, not as an expert on the experience of everyone in group X. Herman Cain does not speak for all African-Americans, just as Beto O'Rourke does not speak for all white people.
That said while we can all acknowledge that membership in a group MAY provide some special insights into how other members of that group experience the world, it seems as if emphasizing the identity of the person making the argument causes a de facto de-emphasis on the quality or persuasiveness of the argument. Historically, in academic settings this kind of thing would have been frowned upon as pathos, an appeal to emotion rather than reason. It disturbs those of us who saw value in debating arguments on their own merits, rather than debating them based on the intersectional identity of the person making the arguments, when this paradigm is jettisoned.
54
The task seems to be to interrogate the idealization of argumentation that rests on emotionless reason alone. Within the framework of a rational objectivity/emotional subjectivity dichotomy (where objectivity accesses truth as recognizable by all other rational beings), pathos indeed seems to be insufficient to lead us reliably to universally recognizable truth (sorry if I'm assuming too much about your standpoint).
But perhaps the subjective conditioning and habits of interlocutors does impact the rhetorical method appropriate to persuade them. Perhaps the ideal of rational objectivity or "equality" Callard refers to that philosophers aspire to is just one among many ways human beings are habituated to identify claims acceptable within their group and distinguish those not acceptable. It is a particular kind of relation to truth as objective achievement deduced through valid argument that marks this culture of argumentation.
But this conception of truth and the model of logic appropriate to it can't be taken for granted as good or ideal or correct. Empirical sociological and anthropological research may well demonstrate that the argumentative practices of philosophers and academics would better be characterized as one among many partial, culturally conditioned practices whose legitimacy rests on the emotional investment of its participants. You rightly call this kind of discourse an "ideal," but it then may not be "real." And reality may demand other forms of speech.
2
There always seems to be someone else of the same qualifications with the opposite point of view. Hearing another state his or her qualifications up front usually makes me think the speaker hasn't much of an argument and is driven more by ego than an interest in discovering truths.
25
As a human being, thinking this much about conversation makes we wonder if it can ever be pleasant communing for purposes of bonding and growth- developing friendship, learning , and loving? For cooperation for mutual benefit? Or is ever to be an act with political, power, management intentions? What have we lost ? Or am I misunderstanding something.....
6
Speaking as a woman and a lesbian I have found that quite often women's experiences, even when not prefaced with "speaking as a woman", are discounted and often overlooked. On Facebook women are attacked more often and quite often in sexual terms by men. We're told that we're whiny or that we must need some. Anything to avoid dealing with what it is we're writing about seems to be the motto of some men.
On the job what we say is minimized or ignored unless a male colleague says the same thing. Then he gets the credit and the promotion. We're told to be more ladylike. To most being more ladylike means not embarrassing the males by knowing more or something they don't, not speaking up at all, and dressing up as attractive eye candy for the men. We are supposed to accept our secondary position with the men.
However, human experience is universal in that, while some things are exclusive to one sex or the other, most things are not. We all know about love, anger, joy, disappointment, growing older, being ill, etc. We know about being bossed or bossing. We know how it feels to be alive. I think that we would do better in relationships in the personal sphere and the work sphere if we learned to listen to each other rather than talking at each other, ignoring each other, or pretending that our differences don't matter. They do and they enrich our lives.
55
@hen3ry: who makes you GO ON Facebook? surely it is not your friends or family who are telling you that you are "whiny and must need some (sex?)" -- I only post on Facebook to people I know in real life. I suggest you do the same. Life is too short to get into insult battles with total strangers on social media!
While I have seen discrimination on the job -- more about agism than sexism -- but both -- I have never, ever in all my life (and I am roughly your age) been told "be more ladylike". That sounds really quaint! I wonder under what circumstances you were told you were NOT ladylike. Were you fighting aggressively at that point, arguing with male colleagues or male bosses? is it at all possible that this is not a discrimination thing with you personally....but that you are confrontational in every social or work setting, and create an antagonistic situation that turns into personal insults?
1
Thanks to the New York Times and other media, I find myself coming back to current philosophy after majoring in "the classics" almost five decades ago.
My hand is already raised here: "Prof Callard, why can't there be an 'experiential standing'? Speaking as a woman all-my-life as opposed to a woman-in-a-man's-body-until-a-few-years-ago, or Speaking as an old, privileged-but-well-traveled female person or Speaking as whoever you are etc. etc. Would we have to parse out the more 'easily' defined standings first? Can that be my paper topic? (Uh oh, what have I gotten myself into ... do I have to offer meta analyses of standing, identity, status ...)"
I greatly appreciate this framing of something I've been thinking about in my own terms for quite some time!
9
@Grace, this is a wonderful idea. For instance, I often find myself speaking as a liberal from a rural place. As a woman, in a room of men without my woman's experience, as a person who suffer chronic migraine and has the experience of how places (lighting, smells, etc.) can trigger migraine.
Experiential standing creates room for each individual to bring their own particular expertise to the conversation.
Thank you for the thinking and suggestion, I hope Prof. Callard adds it to her options of standing in any conversation.
3
@Grace And if there is an "experiential standing", do you need to know the meta analyses of others as you communicate yours to them? Be sure you figure that out up front, or today's university and social media might ban you entirely. Maybe the best idea is to just stay silent. Don't speak openly. We simply should not be a free-thinking society anymore. Oh well.
2
Dwight Schrute, (Acting) Manager, is a big proponent of this.
2
I think this entire article is based on a misunderstanding of what people are trying to accomplish when they are using the phrase, "as a..."
When I speak "as a woman" I am talking about the past experiences I have had (childbirth, being treated as a woman) not the structure of my brain.
Most men have not had the experience, for example, of being the only person of their sex in a difficult technical class and not getting invited to study groups because the majority group didn't want to be misinterpreted as being overly flirty or harassing. That just doesn't happen to men.
In other words, saying that appealing to personal experience and authority is bullying is a red herring. Professor Callard should realize this and treat such accusations as such rather than defending the fact that personal experience is an important component of moral discussions.
28
This may be the best popular philosophy I've seen published in these pages. It was crisp and clear without being over-simplified, and I learned a lot from reading it. Bravo!
12
@Ista Zahn
what a good use of sarcasm. Crisp? Like week old lettuce.
6
Even though Callard lost me 1/3 of the way in, I forgive her.
Writing as a professor of philosophy, Callard is entitled and expected to express herself in a convoluted manner, in the labarynthian way of the philosophers whose work she discusses in classes at my Alma Mater.
36
@LarryAt27N
Why should we give Professor Callard extra room for convolution in her arguments? Is there something about a philosophy professor that is more deserving of a reader's patience than say, a novelist or an engineer? Is philosophical explication, philosophically speaking, more complicated than cooking an apple pie? A philosophy professor might say yes--but then, they would be speaking as a philosophy professor, and that would inherently invite reason for skepticism of their objectivity.
2
@Chris
You wrote,
"Is there something about a philosophy professor that is more deserving of a reader's patience...."
If you read my comment more carefully, you will see that I did not give her any extra room, but simply abandoned her column, The rest of my note is a friendly jab to her ego.
6
@LarryAt27N. You didn't find passages like this clear, and might I say, even elegant?
"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."
2
As a healthcare provider of many decades, I fear what women who attended the same colleges, interned and served equal residencies, passed the same boards as their male counterparts - yes, female physicians, had to go through, back in the day.
After all, as nurses, we were hardly asked for an opinion, but we were also expected to stand up and give our nursing station seats to “the doctors” - the male ones, of course.
Maybe this is why I am drawn to friendships with female physicians today. I hope my friends are not saying “as a woman” because a female doctor’s hands are indeed equal to a male’s, and so are their brains.
There are still, to this day, stubborn and I would say ignorant, gender biased physicians, believe it or not. But we ignore them. Period.
21