|
Post by Christine on Oct 23, 2017 16:38:55 GMT -5
Btw: I would say something to nighttimer about using the word "shrill" to describe Cass's "tone" buuuut I'm pretty sure she doesn't need me to do that.
I remembered something from college. It was in a speech class, basic level stuff. There was a female student in the class who had a rather high-pitched, nasally quality to her voice. As far as I can recall, it was not anything "affected"; it was just her voice. The professor (a woman--'tis true, they can definitely be as bad, or worse, when it comes to sexism) told her she needed to "change her voice."
I confess, to my chagrin, that though I felt sorry for the student (who was very hurt), I immediately bought into the idea that she really needed to change her voice.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 23, 2017 17:01:01 GMT -5
The other thing I was pondering on today: you had mentioned how schools have, for a long time, been all about empowering the girls. And I agree that, at least for white women, this has had a positive effect. So I wonder how many people back in the day were complaining about how useless or unfair or virtue-signally it was to implement programs that empowered girls? Imo, the problem with the above is that the "program" under consideration here--the TA's explicit race and sex based standards for participation--has not been shown to address an actual problem, much less been shown to be any sort of solution to that problem. It strikes me as a self-congratulatory initiative, above all else, i.e. the TA is bragging about it to make herself look good. She may also honestly believe that what she is (was?) doing is a good thing (even as she brags about it), but per the above professor I quoted, all that indicates is that she's a little clueless, at best.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 17:15:31 GMT -5
Heh. The fact is, I don't actually have a shrill voice. (Some of you have heard my poetry readings, and MarkEsq has met me -- I am betting you'd all attest to that.)
When I'm not interacting with them a position of authority, men often tell me I have a lovely, musical voice. But when I am...yeah, it's often another matter. And it's got pretty much squat to do with whether I'm actually stressed or angry. Some guys hear stress and anger -- excuse me, hysteria -- in a female voice that is simply making a point or giving instructions. It is quite remarkable.
It is a deeply ingrained, knee-jerk, in many (but not all) cases unconscious reaction to a woman in command. And pretty much every woman who has been in a position of authority has experienced it. And the word "shrill" is too often used, which is why Christine and I both cringe at it.
I think it kind of goes like this. Women pretty much universally have voices at a higher pitch than most men. Many men have rarely experienced women having authority over them besides a mother or perhaps a teacher. And that authority they shucked off when they reached manhood. So it sits all wrong with them, instinctively, to have an authoritative voice be in that higher register -- hey, they're not little boys, so why is that female yelling at them like mom, and who does she think she is, anyway.
The other thing you'll hear is that "she sounds just like my ex-wife." Yeah.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 23, 2017 17:32:05 GMT -5
The other thing I was pondering on today: you had mentioned how schools have, for a long time, been all about empowering the girls. And I agree that, at least for white women, this has had a positive effect. So I wonder how many people back in the day were complaining about how useless or unfair or virtue-signally it was to implement programs that empowered girls? Imo, the problem with the above is that the "program" under consideration here--the TA's explicit race and sex based standards for participation--has not been shown to address an actual problem, much less been shown to be any sort of solution to that problem. It strikes me as a self-congratulatory initiative, above all else, i.e. the TA is bragging about it to make herself look good. She may also honestly believe that what she is (was?) doing is a good thing (even as she brags about it), but per the above professor I quoted, all that indicates is that she's a little clueless, at best. Okay, I realize that the OP is about the T.A., but the conversation has moved on to the idea of progressive stacking in general--decidedly not as implemented by someone who has essentially stated she finds what any white guy has to say irrelevant. Two things are happening here that I disagree with: (1) progressive stacking is being assumed to have been created to fix "the problem" of college professors ignoring minorities and (2) the T.A. is being held up as an example of what progressive stacking looks like. That's why I brought up the empowered girls initiatives. Were these programs implemented because teachers were *ignoring* girls in the classroom? Even though that certainly did happen and maybe occasionally might still happen, I don't think that's the *why* for all the programs. It's a much bigger picture. Similarly, I don't think the idea that professors are somehow at fault here is at the heart of progressive stacking. Teachers don't have to be part of the problem to be part of a potential solution.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 23, 2017 17:57:18 GMT -5
Heh. The fact is, I don't actually have a shrill voice. (Some of you have heard my poetry readings, and MarkEsq has met me -- I am betting you'd all attest to that.) When I'm not interacting with them a position of authority, men often tell me I have a lovely, musical voice. But when I am...yeah, it's often another matter. And it's got pretty much squat to do with whether I'm actually stressed or angry. Some guys hear stress and anger -- excuse me, hysteria -- in a female voice that is simply making a point or giving instructions. It is quite remarkable. It is a deeply ingrained, knee-jerk, in many (but not all) cases unconscious reaction to a woman in command. And pretty much every woman who has been in a position of authority has experienced it. And the word "shrill" is too often used, which is why Christine and I both cringe at it. I think it kind of goes like this. Women pretty much universally have voices at a higher pitch than most men. Many men have rarely experienced women having authority over them besides a mother or perhaps a teacher. And that authority they shucked off when they reached manhood. So it sits all wrong with them, instinctively, to have an authoritative voice be in that higher register -- hey, they're not little boys, so why is that female yelling at them like mom, and who does she think she is, anyway. The other thing you'll hear is that "she sounds just like my ex-wife." Yeah. My favorite story on this subject is a conversation I had a couple of years ago with a client, an elderly Italian guy. Yeah, I know it's a stereotype, but during this conversation, he went absolutely apeshit, just like an Italian mafia kingpin, about the unreasonableness of the limits to which I was willing to go in assisting him with "tax strategies," (as I tried to stress the importance of having a valid, supportable, tax position in such matters). The kicker was that he actually managed, in between all the ranting, to say: "Now, I realize, you're a woman, so you're emotional." It was so hilarious I couldn't even try to be offended.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 18:11:13 GMT -5
Yep. I have been in similar situations. Sometimes laughing is pretty much the only possible response. And there's something truly ridiculous about being perfectly calm and having the red-faced, shouting, arm-waving person accusing you of being overly emotional.
The client I got out of jail did it to me once or twice. I cut slack because, hell, he was in jail for a crime he didn't commit and if venting some frustration on me made him feel better, I could deal. That said, he actually was kinda sexist, to tell you the truth. Even after I got him out of jail after-- aHEM -- three male attorneys had previously failed to do so at trial and in appeals, in an interview he did after release, he gave a completely disproportionate amount of credit to a male colleague of mine he met once early on (he accompanied me on my first visit to the prison). The work, btw, was entirely done by me. My male colleague, to give him credit where it's due, was mortified by this and kept apologizing to me. But yeah, it wasn't my colleague's fault -- my client just figured the cute young little pipsqueak chick lawyer must have received a lot of help from the dude.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 23, 2017 18:18:15 GMT -5
Btw: I would say something to nighttimer about using the word "shrill" to describe Cass's "tone" buuuut I'm pretty sure she doesn't need me to do that. If want to say something to me, Christine, go ahead. I used the word I thought most appropriate to being called out complete with curse words to make sure there was no ambivalence. Your reaction is yours and mine is mine. We tend to agree more than disagree but we're not joined at the hip. Heh. The fact is, I don't actually have a shrill voice. (Some of you have heard my poetry readings, and MarkEsq has met me -- I am betting you'd all attest to that.) When I'm not interacting with them a position of authority, men often tell me I have a lovely, musical voice. But when I am...yeah, it's often another matter. And it's got pretty much squat to do with whether I'm actually stressed or angry. Some guys hear stress and anger -- excuse me, hysteria -- in a female voice that is simply making a point or giving instructions. It is quite remarkable. It is a deeply ingrained, knee-jerk, in many (but not all) cases unconscious reaction to a woman in command. And pretty much every woman who has been in a position of authority has experienced it. And the word "shrill" is too often used, which is why Christine and I both cringe at it. I think it kind of goes like this. Women pretty much universally have voices at a higher pitch than most men. Many men have rarely experienced women having authority over them besides a mother or perhaps a teacher. And that authority they shucked off when they reached manhood. So it sits all wrong with them, instinctively, to have an authoritative voice be in that higher register -- hey, they're not little boys, so why is that female yelling at them like mom, and who does she think she is, anyway. Shrill is not melodic. There's nothing remotely melodic about someone dropping Fuck bombs on you and demanding you acknowledge their presence. It's not remotely thoughtful political discussion either. It's personalizing the debate and that's all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 18:23:51 GMT -5
You know what, nighttimer? That's so unworthy and hypocritical in about ten different ways, I'm not bothering to engage you.
It is not as though you listen to a damn word anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 23, 2017 18:45:05 GMT -5
Btw: I would say something to nighttimer about using the word "shrill" to describe Cass's "tone" buuuut I'm pretty sure she doesn't need me to do that. If want to say something to me, Christine, go ahead. I used the word I thought most appropriate to being called out complete with curse words to make sure there was no ambivalence. Your reaction is yours and mine is mine. We tend to agree more than disagree but we're not joined at the hip. Indeed, we do, and are not, respectively. Pointing out a sexist remark someone has made is, for me, a defense of/show of solidarity toward the person it was made it to. These things should not generally go unremarked upon, imo. But, as I said, Cass is solid on such matters, so she doesn't need me to say so. It's quite fucking freeing, actually. TCG FTW. That said, I've read your posts for six years now, and I can attest to the fact that you're a good egg, not sexist, at all. Not that you need to me to say so, either. ETA: I suppose asking you to be a bit more kind is out of the question.... Never mind. Anyhoo. Carry on.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 23, 2017 18:49:37 GMT -5
You know what, nighttimer? That's so unworthy and hypocritical in about ten different ways, I'm not bothering to engage you. It is not as though you listen to a damn word anyway. Why? What's so unworthy and hypocritical about taking offense by the rude way you "got in my face? You wanted me to engage you then and I obliged. You boasted "Mission. Fucking. Accomplished" but now that I HAVE engaged you've reconsidered that thought? You think describing your insulting tone as shrill is condescending? I call it accurate. You try being called out and cursed out and see how it makes you feel. I can promise you it certainly won't feel like respect. I listen to every damn word, but it damn sure doesn't mean I will agree with them. You know what? You win. This whole thing has become entirely too personal, totally off topic, too poisonous to serve any purpose. It's not civil and it's not respectful and before anyone in the cheap seats jumps in to say it, it wasn't just me squeezing off shots. I give what I get. Nothing but static and noise is coming from this give-and-take and it's become nothing but a tedious snark fest firing rhetorical shots at each other. The last words are all yours, Cassandra. As salaamu alaikum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 18:58:38 GMT -5
I am far too intimidated to speak.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 23, 2017 18:59:36 GMT -5
Yep. I have been in similar situations. Sometimes laughing is pretty much the only possible response. And there's something truly ridiculous about being perfectly calm and having the red-faced, shouting, arm-waving person accusing you of being overly emotional. The client I got out of jail did it to me once or twice. I cut slack because, hell, he was in jail for a crime he didn't commit and if venting some frustration on me made him feel better, I could deal. That said, he actually was kinda sexist, to tell you the truth. Even after I got him out of jail after-- aHEM -- three male attorneys had previously failed to do so at trial and in appeals, in an interview he did after release, he gave a completely disproportionate amount of credit to a male colleague of mine he met once early on (he accompanied me on my first visit to the prison). The work, btw, was entirely done by me. My male colleague, to give him credit where it's due, was mortified by this and kept apologizing to me. But yeah, it wasn't my colleague's fault -- my client just figured the cute young little pipsqueak chick lawyer must have received a lot of help from the dude. That's the part that's been hard for me, admittedly -- not being seen as being as competent as a man. What makes it harder is that I'm a sole practitioner, so I run into the following: the fact is that everyone in practice absolutely needs to discuss and talk about issues with at least one other professional--ideally, more than one. I have colleagues, and I discuss everything under the sun with them on a regular basis, but I have made the mistake of saying to some clients, "I'll discuss this issue with my colleague (insert male name here)" and then having those clients say, henceforth and forevermore, "Why don't you discuss it with (male name)?" Which I probably would have anyway, but I know for a fact they wouldn't be asking me to discuss it with my colleague (female name). Yeah, at the end of the day, you just smile and deal with it, and of course, give them all the right answers and the best possible service because you are an intelligent, conscientious, perfectionist, borderline OCD professional, even if they don't ever know it. (But a lot of my clients know it, so I get my kudos and it's all good.)
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 23, 2017 19:08:25 GMT -5
If want to say something to me, Christine, go ahead. I used the word I thought most appropriate to being called out complete with curse words to make sure there was no ambivalence. Your reaction is yours and mine is mine. We tend to agree more than disagree but we're not joined at the hip. Indeed, we do, and are not, respectively. Pointing out a sexist remark someone has made is, for me, a defense of/show of solidarity toward the person it was made it to. These things should not generally go unremarked upon, imo. But, as I said, Cass is solid on such matters, so she doesn't need me to say so. It's quite fucking freeing, actually. TCG FTW. That said, I've read your posts for six years now, and I can attest to the fact that you're a good egg, not sexist, at all. Not that you need to me to say so, either. ETA: I suppose asking you to be a bit more kind is out of the question.... Never mind. Anyhoo. Carry on. Your show of solidarity to your gender is duly noted. Does that mean had it been Opty or Amadan who had said the exact same thing you wouldn't feel it necessary to make a similar defense of/show of solidarity? I'm kind but not so kind as to be mistaken as being weak. If people get the impression they can push you around when they want, you can't complain when they push you around. It gives people the wrong fucking impression and this is why I am so adamant about discouraging that sort of shit. From certain quarters I expect that sort of thing. Those individuals have some serious hard-ons about me and some unresolved issues they need to work out with a good shrink. When the flamethrowers come from someone whom I'm typically on civil terms with, it's a bit more startling, but no less aggravating. I like to think I'm more of a good egg than a bad one and I try hard not be sexist, but yeah, I slip up. I'm human. So is everyone else and they can't possibly know what its like to have someone make demands of you they don't have any business making. I don't barter honesty to be politically correct and when I'm told upfront someone is putting me on blast to get a rise out of me, I figure they'll be disappointed if I don't give back what I've received. Respect is a two-way street. Show me none and you get none. After six years you should know that about me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 19:16:16 GMT -5
Yep. I have been in similar situations. Sometimes laughing is pretty much the only possible response. And there's something truly ridiculous about being perfectly calm and having the red-faced, shouting, arm-waving person accusing you of being overly emotional. The client I got out of jail did it to me once or twice. I cut slack because, hell, he was in jail for a crime he didn't commit and if venting some frustration on me made him feel better, I could deal. That said, he actually was kinda sexist, to tell you the truth. Even after I got him out of jail after-- aHEM -- three male attorneys had previously failed to do so at trial and in appeals, in an interview he did after release, he gave a completely disproportionate amount of credit to a male colleague of mine he met once early on (he accompanied me on my first visit to the prison). The work, btw, was entirely done by me. My male colleague, to give him credit where it's due, was mortified by this and kept apologizing to me. But yeah, it wasn't my colleague's fault -- my client just figured the cute young little pipsqueak chick lawyer must have received a lot of help from the dude. That's the part that's been hard for me, admittedly -- not being seen as being as competent as a man. What makes it harder is that I'm a sole practitioner, so I run into the following: the fact is that everyone in practice absolutely needs to discuss and talk about issues with at least one other professional--ideally, more than one. I have colleagues, and I discuss everything under the sun with them on a regular basis, but I have made the mistake of saying to some clients, "I'll discuss this issue with my colleague (insert male name here)" and then having those clients say, henceforth and forevermore, "Why don't you discuss it with (male name)?" Which I probably would have anyway, but I know for a fact they wouldn't be asking me to discuss it with my colleague (female name). Yeah, at the end of the day, you just smile and deal with it, and of course, give them all the right answers and the best possible service because you are an intelligent, conscientious, perfectionist, borderline OCD professional, even if they don't ever know it. (But a lot of my clients know it, so I get my kudos and it's all good.) Yep. It's annoying as fuck, but to some extent, it comes with the territory, and smiling and dealing is the best approach -- at least when it's a client doing it. Happily, as you note, I've found that most clients recognize good work when they see it. When it's a colleague or a boss, I think it's best to firmly stand up for yourself, but to be as civil in so doing as possible (unless perhaps it's egregious or obviously deliberate). Heh. When it's someone in an adversarial position, every once in a while I've found it's better to roll with it. Not because I'm being nice, but because it can end up being an advantage to have them underestimate you. It depends, if course. I wouldn't let someone talk over me in a courtroom or take over a meeting. But I'll happily goad them into making a jackass of themselves and then use it against them...
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 23, 2017 19:25:28 GMT -5
Your show of solidarity to your gender is duly noted. Does that mean had it been Opty or Amadan who had said the exact same thing you wouldn't feel it necessary to make a similar defense of/show of solidarity? I can't imagine Opty or Amadan saying that to Cass, but I can picture at least one of them saying it to me (worse has been said, imo). I've said some things too. My vote is to move on and argue the fuck out of shit while trying to not make it personal. Crazy, I know. I do, I know all of these things, and I love you to the moon and back, just saying. I'm glad you're here, and I want you to stay, to be welcome, and to write your truth without having to constantly be on the defense or on the attack. To post like you do but without all the personal crap. Respect IS a two-way street, but you don't have to follow anyone down a stupid, pointless street. And same goes for them, obviously.
|
|