I go to a small cafe for a coffee and muffin on my way to work. This morning, I was the only person in line, so I had a chance to chat with the barrista, "Sam." I was asking him a few questions about his band when a customer, who had been sitting at a table, walked up to the counter for a refill, and interrupted our conversation by asking "Oh you're in a band? What kind of music do you play?"
Being interrupted really irked me. This guy didn't join our conversation; he ignored me and spoke to Sam as though I wasn't there. Had he interrupted to say, "could I get a refill," or if he had been waiting behind me in line, I wouldn't have minded. Instead, he elbowed his way into a discussion without regard for half of the people involved. I didn't have time for a discussion with Mr."Can't-Wait-For-My-Turn" on the finer points of common courtesy. I also didn't want to put Sam into the rough spot of having to referee between two customers (I've been a server myself, it sucks.) Instead, I caved to my internal voice that said "you should just be polite and walk away, it's not that big a deal." So I left.
I don't think Mr. "Can't Wait" needed a huge lecture on manners or male privellege, just a reminder that I was still there. Fellow feminists, what should be done in a situation such as this? What are some ways of asserting ourselves during casual (eg. brief) exchanges?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: "Hey! I'm still here!".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12573
I can see the situation you were in was tough, but I definitely wouldn't have walked away. Maybe that's just because I've been a bit rebellious lately, and I've always been small, with a small voice, so I've had people talk over me, or interrupt me for most of my life. I suppose I've just become reactionary to the whole ordeal.
That was rude of him though. I think I would have stayed, and chimed right back in when I had the chance. This would have shown him that I was not at all intimidated by his presence, and that I wasn't going anywhere until I finished what I had to say. And I would have a had a big cheesy smile the whole time. Rebellious.
I always get kind of sarcastic in this kind of situation because it's so irritating that it's totally acceptable for men to interrupt women and hijack their conversations in our culture. I think I would have addressed some remark ("I realize that our culture values you more than me, but I still think it's rude to totally interrupt me like that...") directly to the other customer so that the barrista didn't feel any obligation to intercede. Or my more common response is to stare unbelievingly at the interrupter and say "Really??? That seems acceptable to you? Wow" before walking away. Of course, this involves interrupting him yourself, and will most likely be viewed as rudeness on your part.
Um, just assert yourself. You'll never see these people again and so long as you don't flip your lid do whatever you want. Plus, I view asserting myself with strangers is a good way to practice doing it with people I actually know. Something like, "Excuse me but you interrupted me and I was just talking. Can I continue?"
I have to agree. He would NOT have interrupted a man like that, so react the way a man who'd been interrupted would.
"Hey guy, we're talking here! What's your problem?"
He'll be shocked to get a reaction like that from a woman (because only men are allowed to get angry in public when they're disrespected) but it might just teach him a lesson.
This can be explained by that this guy likes music, and you're not the one with a band, so he rudely ignored you. There are other explanations besides male privilege.
You know, that was my reaction too, but that's merely from looking at this one incident.
In the aggregate, I'll bet you'd see that this is part of a pattern, not this one guy who was just intereted in music and has poor social skills.
Some of the studies I read which showed that men take up more physical space, are more likely to invade the physical space of women, etc also looked at communication patterns and concluded that men are less likely to apologize than women, and are more likely to speak over or interrupt women. That's certainly been my experience in academic and professional settings.
Analysis fail. If privilege were not involved, the male interruptor would have acknowledged the female OP before engaging the barrista, and would have included the OP in the resulting conversation.
Um, you really don't know whether that's true unless you test it with a number of people, as in what alixana mentioned.
In just this one incident you have no way of distinguishing whether he disrespects women, or disrespects people who are not in bands, or just is rude to everyone. How do you know that this particular person acts differently towards men? Because he is a man and that's what 100% of men do?
Although, I do agree with alixana that if you looked at this over a large number of people, you would almost certainly see an effect of gender. Just, you really can't assume what that particular person would do based on this one anecdote.
And, according to that line of reasoning, it's never male privilege, but always the passion/intensity of this one guy, in this one situation. So all my male students who unthinkingly interrupt female students in class or start speaking without raising their hands even as female students are sitting there with their hands raised are just more passionate than my female students about the subject matter. The men who routinely shove their way in front of my friends and I when standing in line at the crowded bar are just more interested in beer than we are. And so it's rude of us to call them on it. The male faculty members who routinely talk over female faculty and dominate the conversation in meetings are just more invested in teaching and in department policy than we are. That's all. It's not male privilege.
No one is disputing that male privilege exists or that some men are rude to women because of it. I just don't think that it's at all logical to point at one random instance of a man being rude to a woman and claim that it's entirely because of his privilege.
If you followed any of the rude guys around for a while, you'd probably discover that some of them are only that rude to women. But you'd also discover that some of them are just rude to everyone. People suck.
I'm sure you've interrupted men before, and I'm sure you've been interrupted by other women. Everyone is rude sometimes. Everyone experiences rudeness sometimes.
Sure, but I'm responding to someone who's asserting that it's not male privilege, but rather just a rude individual. What I'm saying is that the general pattern is for men to interrupt women, so it's less reasonable to assume that it's not privilege. This is just basic inductive logic.
And either way, if he's rude, she has a right to respond to him, whether it's individual rudeness or a reflection of privilege.
Rachel: "I'm responding to someone who's asserting that it's not male privilege, but rather just a rude individual"
Nope:
Qwerty: "This can be explained by that this guy likes music, and you're not the one with a band, so he rudely ignored you. There are other explanations besides male privilege."
In other words, male privilege is one of many possible explanations for his behavior, so why pick that one reason and ignore all others?
"if he's rude, she has a right to respond to him, whether it's individual rudeness or a reflection of privilege."
Absolutely. A generically assertive response will do just fine, along the lines of "Hey, we were talking and you interrupted me!". I think no one here would dispute her right to respond to him, or consider her rude for doing so.
No one said it's never male privilege. But you seem to be insinuating that it's ALWAYS male privilege. I think qwerty's point, and mine certainly was, that some rudeness is attributable to male privilege and some rudeness is not. You can't assume that EVERY instance involving a man and a woman is BECAUSE it's a man and a woman, unless you follow those people around and compare their responses to other people of both genders.
But come on, where in the post that you're responding to is there any indication that male privilege does not exist, or that it definitely is not the cause in this case?
But when it's a pattern of men predominantly interrupting and talking over women, as has been documented in numerous studies, it seem kind of pollyanna-ish to deny that male privilege is involved.
It depends exactly what the studies say- an effect does not have to be very big or very common to be statistically significant, it just has to be proven beyond 95-99% certainty that it exists at all.
You're assuming that just because men are more likely than women to do X behavior, that most men do X behavior.
When you say it's a "pattern of men predominantly interrupting and talking over women", what does that mean, statistics-wise? Does it mean that in a MAJORITY of mixed-sex conversations, the men interrupt the women, but men NEVER interrupt other men? Because that's the kind of numbers you would have get, to justify the assumption that any given man is probably biased as such.
If you're seeing more complicated numbers that show slight, but statistically significant, differences in how men and women treat each other, where within-group differences are bigger than between-group differences (which is virtually always the case in behavioral research studies) then you cannot assume the reasons for a person's behavior based on their gender alone.
I'm not claiming this
just because men are more likely than women to do X behavior, that most men do X behavior
at all. I'm not sure where you get that. I'm just saying that to deny the possibility that this man behaved this way because of the systemic privileging of male voices in our culture is inconsistent with observable patterns in verbal behavior. And, since studies show that men are more likely to interrupt women, linking this behavior in general to male privilege is perfectly reasonable. And in this sense, talking about "male privilege" is not meant as a blanket statement or a claim that men are a monolithic group. Rather, it's a claim about men as a group which obviously allows for exceptions and variance within the group.
If you are not claiming the statement you quoted from me, then how is this:
And, since studies show that men are more likely to interrupt women, linking this behavior in general to male privilege is perfectly reasonable.
At all related to the OP?
Because unless MOST men have Y motivation for behavior X, if all we know about someone is that he is a man, it is unreasonable to think that Y motivation is probably linked.
I'm just saying that to deny the possibility that this man behaved this way because of the systemic privileging of male voices in our culture is inconsistent with observable patterns in verbal behavior.
Please read this, carefully, three times:
I. Am. Not. Denying. That. Male. Privilege. Exists.
I. Am. Not. Denying. That. Male. Privilege. Is. A. Possibility. In. This. Case.
Reading comprehension ftw.
I'm just saying that to deny the possibility that this man behaved this way because of the systemic privileging of male voices in our culture is inconsistent with observable patterns in verbal behavior.
I was replying to Qwerty's comment.
The thing is, it's clear that whatever I say, on whatever thread on this blog I say it, you'll take issue with it. This frequently involves misquoting me and misconstruing what I say. That's fine if that's your thing. The fact remains that these behavior patterns do exist in our culture and are well documented. That doesn't mean this is necessarily an instance of that, and I never said it was. But there's a very good chance that it's related to the general phenomenon. Do with that as you will, I'm sort of beyond caring at this point.
As I already mentioned above, Qwerty did. not. deny. the possibility of male privilege effects.
I'm sorry to hear that you think I attack you personally. The thing is, you happen to make a lot of comments where you state an opinion, and then mention that as an ACADEMIC you have loads of STUDIES that mean you are right. I happen to disagree sometimes whether facts you mention really support the opinion you're going for. And as someone who researches social, behavioral, and gender psychology, and understands statistics, I feel obligated to engage in a little scientific debate when I feel facts are being misrepresented. I assure you it is nothing personal. It's just debate among peers- a requirement of the scientific community, which I hope (mistakenly I guess) that other researchers/scientists would engage in without getting offended. So again, I'm responding to your ideas, not to you, ok?
I'm never beyond caring whether statistics and research are interpreted appropriately, they're my day job and my life.
And yes, male privilege and other gender influences are a definite part of life (notice how I've agreed with you on this every time you re-assert it?). But several people agreed that your comments did imply they are at work in this case, and you dismissed Qwerty's point that there are many possibilities behind behavior, which, sorry, I feel obligated to dispute.
It's interesting that several commenters upthread actually did say exactly what you're wrongfully attributing to me, but you didn't even respond to them. Why not?
And I think empirical data is relevant to a discussion like this, which is my motivation for bringing it in. I apologize if that makes you feel threatened. In the environment I work in, nobody would listen or put any weight on your words if you just started talking about your personal experiences and speculating about anecdotes and individual motivations. And talking about behavior patterns is relevant to discussions of systemic privilege, so I'm not sure why we should be expected to leave them out. You're invested in quantitative analysis as part of your job and identity, and I'm invested in my research and areas of study as well. Why is it only problematic on my end?
And I haven't misrepresented any studies here. My summary of the findings from the study from 2005 that I mentioned in my response to Qwerty comes directly from the abstract of that study. I didn't make up any numbers here.
Where did I say that we shouldn't bring up empirical evidence, or that you lied about numbers?
I simply disagree whether some of the facts you bring up actually have the implications that you are suggesting.
Like when you referred to a source that found men more likely than women to overpower people in conversation, and less likely to apologize.
I do not see what that has to do with THIS man. And bringing it up could be misleading to some, which is why I pointed out the difference.
It is not only problematic on your end. I have biases and oversights too, and I am quite grateful when my peers point them out to me.
You objected to my using studies to back my opinion. You also said I was misrepresenting facts when I referred to these studies.
And general trends in behavior that fall along gender lines are relevant here. My mentioning the studies does not amount to my claiming that this is the dynamic at work in each and every male-female interaction. But it does make male privilege a likely and plausible explanation. But when I say "likely" and "plausible" I don't mean "100% certain that they're causally linked," so maybe that's also a source of misunderstanding.
I did not object to the use of sources. I disagreed with which sources you chose to use for the point you were making. And yes, citing a legitimate study and then making claims that do not follow logically from the data is misrepresenting the implications of the study. And it can, at times, take advantage of intelligent people who happen to not be well-versed in that field. Whether this is what you did, is of course debatable. But this is why I pick apart your posts more than people who just say "Men suck and patriarchy is responsible for every single aspect of society", because any intelligent person can deal with that themself. But since I'm familiar with most of the studies you're talking about beyond what's common knowledge, I chime in a little more, just like everyone else does when their area of interest is under scrutiny.
OK, but you still haven't explained how I made any claims that don't follow from the study.
If studies show that men interrupt women on average 2.3 times as often as women interrupt men, then it's reasonable to conclude that male privilege impacts our verbal interactions, and that when a man interrupts a woman, one plausible explanation is male privilege. You might disagree with the conclusions I draw based on this same study, but that doesn't mean that my conclusions do not logically follow. There's a difference between saying "I disagree with your conclusions" and "your conclusions do not logically follow from the study." Because, if you make the second claim, the onus is on you to demonstrate how my reasoning is faulty.
and that when a man interrupts a woman, one plausible explanation is male privilege.
Ok:
If studies show that men interrupt women on average 2.3 times as often as women interrupt men,
then
it's reasonable to conclude that male privilege impacts our verbal interactions
yep. Perfectly reasonable.
and that when a man interrupts a woman, one plausible explanation is male privilege.
Yes, also logical. But, you didn't exactly make this point until a few comments back, way into our little tizzle. What several people were discussing, and you were dismissing as "pollyanna-ish" was the possibility that other factors might also be plausible explanations. It seemed to me and several others that you were shutting down any explanation other than male privilege, and calling it a complete denial that male privilege exists at all. And, as a justification for this, you brought up a few times how common it is for men to interrupt women.
So here's the disconnect:
Men are more likely than women to interrupt.
|
V
Interruption is common among men.
The first part, you backed up with evidence. The second part, you did not, but it seemed like it was supposed to follow somehow.
Men are more likely than women to murder. It is still a rare occurence for a man to commit murder. So if person A says "let's talk about things that men do". And person B says "they keep murdering people". And then person C says "we could also talk about objectification of women". If B then says, "It is silly to deny that murder by men exists, because men commit murder X times more often than women do", can you see how that statistic, while correct and important, is misleading in this case?
I'm not arguing that interrupting is not common among men, just that we don't know, based on the evidence that you did bring up, whether it is common or not. You gave no reason for why we should be focusing so much on male privilege.
And... the column keeps... getting thinner... and thinner...
And referring to male privilege as a motivation for behavior is strange and not the way privilege in general is usually viewed in this area of theory. The idea is not that privilege is something that consciously motivates your behavior, but that it's a part of your social construction, which often produces behavior of a certain type in members of the privileged group. But even if I claimed that male privilege caused his behavior, which I didn't, I wouldn't be claiming that he thought to himself "hey, I'm a man, and therefore my voice is privileged in our culture, so therefore I can interrupt this woman, hijack the conversation, and ignore her completely." That would be a very strange claim, and if that's what you're thinking, then I can see why you object.
Ok this one was sloppiness on my part. I meant motivation as in, a reason or cause for behavior. You'll notice that as other "motivations" I mentioned Asperger's and family dynamics, neither of which are conscious or explicit.
I was using "male privilege" as shorthand for "culturally instilled excuses for behavior given to men", which can definitely be a direct reason for particular behaviors, so I think it IS comparable to the other factors I mentioned.
I think many people actually do think of privilege that way, which is why there's so often a strong, emotional backlash when privilege is invoked. Especially white privilege. Most people don't seem to understand that just because you yourself were not aware of privilege and were not actively thinking that you had a right to something just because you're white, that this makes it not an instance of white privilege. In reality, the workings of privilege are much more subtle than that, but by denying this, people often deny the existence of privilege.
This is really common in discussions of white-on-black police brutality. In each instance the perpetrator is just dismissed as a bad cop, or someone who made a mistake, and this prevents people from thinking of the phenomenon as a whole.
No one is denying that male privilege exists, and no one is denying that male privilege could very well be at work in this particular case.
What a lot of us object to is the OP pointing to this as an example of sexism based on a very short interaction, which is hardly fair to the man. She claims he wouldn't have done this to her if she were male, but she has no way of knowing that. Re-reading the post, it even seems possible that the guy just sucks at social cues, or is friends with the barista. She left immediately after he showed up, so she doesn't even know if the guy was planning to order anything.
A couple different things could have happened, and male privilege is certainly one. Just because something is reasonable possibility doesn't mean it's the One True Answer.
Right, I don't remember claiming that it was The One True answer. What I did say is, given the well-documented pattern of men interrupting and talking over women, it is more likely that his response is related to male privilege than some other demographic criteria that's not statistically correlated to this kind of verbal behavior.
No, not at all, actually. What qwerty is asserting is that just because it happened to be a man-women interaction does not necessitate it being one resultant of privilege making it acceptable.
The examples you've cited are examples of men-centric behaviors which result from privilege, but there's a disconnect between the OP's conversation and what you're talking about. No one in the OP's entry had anything to do with competition -- for attention in all of the cases you've cited -- and everything to do with this guy being a jerk for some other unknown reason.
You don't need to read a pile of studies to see that your example and the OP's situation are different set ups with different aims.
I am in no way denying the existence and power and male privilege because it does exist, no question. What I'm denying is that this particular instance is necessarily based in male privilege.
What you've posited in your commenting is that any interaction between men and women where men feel that they're being cut off or the recipient of aggression is therefor a symptom of male privilege. I, personally, reject that thesis.
What you've posited in your commenting is that any interaction between men and women where men feel that they're being cut off or the recipient of aggression is therefor a symptom of male privilege. I, personally, reject that thesis.
**where WOMEN feel...
typo, sorry.
What you've posited in your commenting is that any interaction between men and women where men feel that they're being cut off or the recipient of aggression is therefor a symptom of male privilege
I'm sorry, but I simply never made this claim. Others have attributed it to me, but I myself never said that. There are others upthread who did explicitly make this claim, but it wasn't me.
But interrupting someone and excluding them from the conversation is always a power play, no matter what's at stake. It clearly constructs the interrupted and excluded individual as less-than.
And I came late to this discussion, but I didn't get this
from Rachel's comments at all. I thought she was just saying it's more likely that it is connected to privilege than to some other outlying factor.
I had a philosophy class in which the guys in it would always interupt the teacher during her lectures. I felt it was so fucked up and so obviously based on sexism. The two guys who did it routinely were huge misogynist asshats that had half of the class (the female half) booing him when he suggested that women only vote on politicians based on their looks, among other things. The teacher told him how offensive that is to women and he looked 'put in his place.'
My main area is actually philosophy, which is a very male-dominated field, and I've had that experience with studetns repeatedly. I think it's aggravated by the fact that I look much younger than I actually am so they tend to think of me as being more like a peer, even though I'm at least 10 years older than most of them. Which is, I suppose, a form of ageism.
But this is very, very common at the APA convention. Last spring I presented a paper I had just gotten published at the APA and it generated a lot of vigorous discussion. During the Q&A period I kept getting interrupted by men in the audience. And I wasn't giving long, rambling answers or anything - it was like I would just begin to answer, speak for 45 seconds, and get interrupted by a follow-up question. The moderator, who was this kind of grumpy old man who usually takes a very conservative view, stood up and said "this is very unconventional behavior to repeatedly interrupt the presenter during Q&A, and, since none of you exhibits this behavior when the presenter is male, I can only conclude that you're behaving this way because the presenter is a woman." And then he sat down and glared at everyone over his glasses. They were very well behaved for the rest of the session.
I'm someone who frequently gets interrupted and spoken over (even as a middle-class, white male). While I can't say this would work for you, given the stated, I would have done either what you did or, given my level of annoyance, said "Excuse me?" really sharply. I find it take people off of their high horse pretty quickly and also gives you time to collect yourself into a nice follow up of "I realize you're interested in what we're talking about, but you totally just cut me off here."
Men are not a monolith, no matter how mainstream feminists insist on it by using the general blanked term "men". What about quiet men? Loud women? Men with anxious disorders? Men who grew up competing for attention? Men who are conditioned to be agressive by being rewarded? Men who interrupt other men?
Male privilege, when applied to everything in every place in the world, is simply a way to monopolize the experiences of men and simplify a world into a more easily attackable place.
ah, i meant to reply to rachel.
and i meant "a general blanket term"
I'm not sure that we mean the same thing when we use the term "male privilege." In studies of systemic privilege, of which "male privilege" is a subset, you talk loosely of a group in general as being privileged (or underprivileged), and of exhibiting behavior that's consistent with that. So using the term "male privilege" does not imply that men are a monolithic group or that all men are identical. Of course that would be an absurd thing to claim. But you can study general behavior patterns, such as use of personal space, apologizing and interrupting, etc.
Many of the studies on verbal behavior, for example, are done in professional settings. A study that was done in businesses in 8 different cities in 2005 showed that women apologize a little less than three times as often as men do (and that the rate varies somewhat with geographic location), and that men interrupt or talk over women a little more than twice as often as women do. This doesn't mean that every single man in the world will behave this way. But we can certainly observe and discuss patterns such as these without making that claim, so asking us to stop using terms like "male privilege" which can be useful in a context like this, seems unreasonable.
1) No one said to stop using the term "male privilege". People have objected to treating male privilege as the ONLY possibility. See how these two statements are not even remotely the same?
2)If 5% of women are interrupters and 20% of men are interrupters, then men are FOUR TIMES as likely as women to interrupt. And yet, 80% of men are not interrupters. So, to say, because that person is male, he is probably an interrupter, is pretty nonsensical.
3)Even in men who are definitely interrupters, such as the man in the OP, that does not mean that he must be an interrupter BECAUSE OF male privilege. Maybe everyone in his family, male and female, is rude in conversation, and he learned that habit from them. Or, maybe he has Asperger's or schizophrenia and does not understand subtle social interactions. Or sure, maybe because he is a man, society has taught him that it's ok to talk over women.
1. Qwerty said Male privilege, when applied to everything in every place in the world, is simply a way to monopolize the experiences of men and simplify a world into a more easily attackable place. In many other threads he has claimed that making general statements about male privilege amounts to attacking teh poor menz, so I was responding to a general claim he has made on a number of occasions.
2. I never said that because that person is male he is probably an interrupter. I am perfectly well acquainted with quantitative analysis and with what you can and cannot conclude from statistics. The problem is, I've never said the things that you keep claiming I said, but knock yourself out if that's what works for you.
3. I realize that there are other explanations for why a man might interrupt. Again, I never said that without a doubt this particular man interrupted this particular woman because of male privilege and male privilege alone. But I doubt that you'll ever believe that.
Qwerty said "Male privilege, when applied to everything in every place in the world, is simply a way to monopolize the experiences of men and simplify a world into a more easily attackable place."
Sure, if you remove the bolded part that's exactly what he's saying.
Qwerty believes that it's unfair to men and inaccurate for feminists to use the term "men." He said it, not me. He also objects to the use of the term "male privilege," here and on other threads. So my response was to his comment and his stance on this issue. If you don't agree with him, then I'm not arguing with you.
I'm white, and have been an activist all my life. While I have my blind spots, I tend to be very sensitive to my white privilege and a fairly good ally. But simply because I don't abuse my white privilege in the way a lot of other people do, that's no reason for me to ask POC to stop talking about "white privilege." Discussions about privilege are discussions of trends and behavior patterns in general, and just because there are some individuals who do not conform to the general patterns doesn't mean that's a reason to drop the discussion altogether, as Qwerty would have us do. As a person who grew up with all kinds of unearned advantages simply as a result of being white and middle class, it does me good to hear about and think about white privilege. Why doesn't the same thing apply to teh pore menz?
This is why women need to be more assertive. I'm glad for my family... all of us talk over each other (males and females), so I have no problem just talking right over whoever tries to interrupt me. It's what I do with my family! I just am very protective of my verbal rights. (Unfortunately, I'm not that assertive about everything, but it's one step at a time, right?)
I'm kind of confused as to why male privilege is being blamed here. Some people are just rude, regardless of gender. I work in customer service too, and they come in all types.
I guess I just can't bring myself to analyze this guy's inner mental workings, his prejudices and attitudes, just from hearing about one isolated incident. Granted, it was rude of him to budge and barge into your conversation, but I don't think he meant it to lord himself and his "male privilege" over the OP.
I think people invoke the concept of male privilege because of the fact that it's so common for men to interrupt and talk over women. That doesn't mean you can conclude that this is the dynamic at play in this particular situation, but it is at least a plausible explanation.
And I'm not sure why you conclude this I don't think he meant it to lord himself and his "male privilege" over the OP after stating that you just can't bring myself to analyze this guy's inner mental workings, his prejudices and attitudes, just from hearing about one isolated incident. If you can't analyze his behavior, than how can you conclude that he didn't mean to lord it over anyone?
Oh, oops. I did not mean to contradict myself. Thanks for letting me know, that was kind of silly. I guess I was just typing without thinking it over.
From the information given, it just seemed like he was randomly butting in because he felt like it and/or has no manners, not necessarily because he's a man and she's a woman. I guess what I ultimately meant to say was I didn't have a lot to go on to jump to conclusions about his ideas of male privilege.
A steely glare suffices for me. However, knobs like this are going to get bloody furious no matter how politely/elegantly/firmly/etc. you point out their shitty behavior; inherent in behaving like that is the assumption that the behavior is awesome and totally okay, and that the perpetrator is a superior person.
I don't think guys like this will ever actually learn to treat other people with civility, because that's inconsistent with their worldview, but if they get called on their shit by enough women, it's possible that they'll eventually lay off. Negative reinforcement is pretty powerful. Unfortunately, the pressure on women is to shut up and take it (our personal and economic safety is at stake, as you implied in your story), so it's a rare and precious thing when some macho nitwit actually gets negative feedback for his behavior. Alas.
Original poster here. I'm fascinated and appreciative of all the responses - gives me a lot to think about.
I just wanted to say that I DON'T think the other customer was rude because I'm female. I got the impression he would've interrupted or ignored anyone. He seemed more oblivious than purposefully rude. I actually don't think his behavior was an example of Male Privilege. (That was what I had INTENDED to convey with the line, "I don't think he needed a lecture on Male Privilege." By itself, his behavior wasn't an affront against women, it was just generally bad manners.) But I DO think I GAVE him privilege when I walked away. This is totally on me.
I left because I wanted to be nice. I didn't want to be offensive. I didn't want to cause trouble. When I walked away, I tacitly supported his interruption and his behavior. I frequently take the "polite" route in situations like this. I am not proud of this tendency and I'm trying to curb it. I think many other women share this desire to be "nice," and that is why I brought the question to this community. I want to be a better advocate for myself, even in casual encounters.
Again, all of the responses have given me a lot to think about. Thanks again.
I'd be equally pissed off at the barista, if I was you. Actually, probably more mad at the barista than the random dude. I'm assuming you're friends/friendly acquaintances with this barista guy?
He should've either 1)called the guy on interrupting or 2)worked him into the convo briefly or 3)answered him in a couple short sentences and went back to you.
Rudeness all around!
This is a response to tammiamibutcher, but the thread up above has gotten too skinny.
You said this:
It seemed to me and several others that you were shutting down any explanation other than male privilege, and calling it a complete denial that male privilege exists at all. And, as a justification for this, you brought up a few times how common it is for men to interrupt women.
So here's the disconnect:
Men are more likely than women to interrupt.
|
V
Interruption is common among men.
The first part, you backed up with evidence. The second part, you did not, but it seemed like it was supposed to follow somehow.
I think there are a couple of things going on here. I was actually making claims from a couple of different sources which seem to have become melded together throughout the argument.
1. I did suggest that interruption is common among men, but did not base that on any study. I listed the many times men have interrupted women in my classroom, in faculty meetings, in social situations like at the bar, at the APA convention, etc. It's true that I work in a very male-dominated field and live in a geographical location with a very male-dominant culture, so that obviously has an impact. The thing is, as a student at UCB and at Stanford, other male student felt just as free to interrupt and talk over female students, so it seems unlikely that this is an isolated feature of this part of the country.
2. I did say that according to studies, men are more likely to interrupt women, and this indicates the existence of male privilege in general and makes male privilege a plausible explanation in this case. I also argued that it's a more plausible explanation than demographic criteria that has not been statistically linked to this kind of verbal behavior. This is very different from saying that there are no other possible explanations.
3. I didn't say that all the other commenters were claiming that male privilege doesn't exist. I did reply to Qwerty's request that feminists stop talking about "men" as a group and stop invoking the concept of "male privilege." Other commenters here are free to comply with his request if they feel that it's appropriate. I don't.
4. I'm not sure what good it does feminists who are allegedly invested in dismantling male privilege to constantly be casting about for other explanations for overbearing male behavior. If we do as Qwerty suggests and censor ourselves from thinking of men as a group or ever attributing their behavior to male privilege, then we impose a lot of work on ourselves and preclude ourselves from being able to work against this privilege. If I have to say to myself as various male members of the audience interrupt me "well, he's just probably having a bad day, and it's just a coincidence that he repeatedly interupts me and not the male presenters here" and just smile and suck it up, how is that making any progress toward social change? If everytime a man sits down next to me on the bus, spreads his legs out, and sprawls all over my space I tell myself, "well, he's probably just claustrophobic, maybe his parents used to lock him in a closet or something, so I should just keep my mouth shut and let him have my space too" then how is this hierarchical pattern of behavior ever supposed to change? And why is the onus on me to explain away and forgive this kind of behavior? I have an equal right to conversational and personal space. I acknowledge that men in our culture have simply been socialized to view themselves as having more of a right to it than I, and that this is generally neither conscious nor intentional on their part. But it's still a part of a larger behavior pattern that feeds into and upholds patriarchal values. For this reason, I object to it, and I don't think we should try to deter women from standing up for themselves and actively discouraging this kind of behavior on the part of teh pore menz.
This is the last time I will respond to you because I'm tired of repeating myself.
For the fifth time, no one, not even Qwerty said to STOP thinking about male privilege. It was just said that we should not OVERapply it, or use it ALL the time.
Although you acknowledge many possibilities in point #2, you are being extremely all-or-nothing in point #4. It is perfectly do-able to keep male privilege in mind as one possible factor, while also allowing for individual variation, at the same time.
And likewise, where the heck did I say that you should be a pushover?
How about this for a game plan: Treat people as both individuals, and as members of groups. Accept there are patterns to behavior, and also frequent exceptions. And stand up for yourself whenever anyone is rude to you, no matter what their reason is. You cannot assume the reasons behind a person's behavior, so to tell them "You're doing that because you're a man" is really disrespectful. But you can certainly tell them how their behavior affects you, and insist on being respected.
Because the thing is, if they ARE doing because they are men and you are a woman, when you call them on rude behavior, that still sends a message that just because you are a woman they cannot treat you as less than human. You can do this without telling them the reasons behind their own behavior.
So go ahead and knock yourself out analyzing male douchebaggery on a systemic level, we always need more info about that. But when it comes to dealing with individuals, you are being SEXIST if you see them as a man first, and an individual person second.
I'm sure you're right.
What I'm saying is that the general pattern is for men to interrupt women, so it's less reasonable to assume that it's not privilege.
You did right there. If it's "less reasonable" as you have put it, it means, then, that the more reasonable (and thus more correct) assumption is that it is always male privelege. If you're going to go on long winded tangents about what people have implied through their statements, we're just as entitled to do it back.
I don't see what I've said as being unreasonable here. I think you're misusing science to be sexist against all men regardless of circumstance - especially in this case with the OP and the "discussion" you've been having with me and other people here.
I will admit we frequently butt heads on this forum, but honestly, I think you like to write me off because "I just don't get what you're saying". I do get what you're saying; I just think you're being sexist against this man. How do you know he's not developmentally disabled?
I clicked reply and it didn't set it in? hmm... weird.
If it's "less reasonable" as you have put it, it means, then, that the more reasonable (and thus more correct) assumption is that it is always male privelege
This doesn't follow at all. The opposite of less likely simply isn't "always." No logical system in the world would uphold this kind of reasoning.
I realize that there's kind of a gang mentality going on here, and that makes it kind of hard to think clearly and systematically, but making such bizarre claims about logic is pretty out there.
I'm sure you're right. If it's less reasonable to conclude that it's not privilege, then the only other option is that it's always, in each and every case, privilege. Since that makes perfect sense to you, and most other commenters here, I'll set aside everything I know about logic and coherent reasoning and defer. You must be right.
I'm glad you see the flawed logic you've presented in the compounding threads.
You've referenced studies and other posts which back you up with this preponderance of evidence to support that claim.
We frequently butt heads, but don't treat me like a child. This may be the internet but you're treating me like an asshole.
It's true that the statements you've attributed to me are based on flawed logic. But I myself never said them, so it's your problem, not mine. If you'd care to quote me wherever I said that male interruption is always attributable to male privilege and also that in this particular instance it is, then I'll be glad to take it back. Why has nobody quoted me as saying this? Because I never said it. If you continue to claim that I said a bunch of shit that I didn't say, then you are being an asshole, and that has nothing to do with anything I said or did.
The thing is, I think that arguing about logic is kind of a waste of time in a context like this. It seems like most people here are not interested in sound reasoning if that means letting go of their point. Probably you're committed to sound reasoning if your area is philosophy, and I'm into it because I'm a math geek. But generally speaking, people don't care if their arguments are internally consistent, especially where emotions are running high. So you could symbolize Gular's argument and apply the rules of inference and deduction to show that it doesn't follow, but that would be perceived as arrogance on your part.
For what it's worth, I see what you're saying.
Thanks. And I agree with you about the logic thing. I actually teach the pre-Law section of Symbolic Logic and Critical Thinking but hadn't mentioned it precisely because of the arrogance thing. That being said, I've never seen a logic or critical thinking textbook that would accept this kind of reasoning, so it can't just be me that's baffled by this version of logic.
I'm still waiting for the quotes. If I said the things you've attributed to me, then you ought to be able to provide quotes, right? So where are they?
To summarize my objections: I think its sexist to apply systematic analysis to individuals whom you know nothing about besides his gender.
Its not the concept of privilege itself that bothers me, but how feminsists use it in argument. They use to create a strawman, to belittle achievements of men, and to dismiss legitimate male societal problems. (the poor menz, how dare they complain about man-bashing or the male suicide rate or society viewing them as expendable mules to work dangerous jobs such as mining)
If you see a guy on your bus, and you immediately have a caricature and judgment of him solely based on his gender, that is an over application of privielge.
My comment about men on the bus was based on research that shows that men overwhelmingly take up more space in public places like busses, benches, trains, etc. And every woman I know has experience with this. Does that mean that every single man does it? No. But it is a pattern tied to gender. And since men are overwhelmingly privileged in our culture, "privilege" is the right word here.
But that's not the only issue. You don't want us to talk about "men" as a group at all. Do you ever make comments about "women" as a group? You certainly make lots and lots of comments about "feminists." Does that mean you think we're a monolithic group? Seems like it, since you frequently attribute this propensity for "attacking" teh pore menz to us. So, does this mean you think that each and every feminist attacks teh menz on a regular basis? Well, then you are being bigoted and illogical.
You see, asking people not to generalize or think of the culturally constructed groups in our society as groups is limiting to the point where nobody can say anything or theorize about anything or anyone ever. And if that shut down all feminist theory, you would be quite pleased.
And I don't know where you get this idea that all feminists think of men as expendable mules. That's so ridiculous that I can't even begin to respond to it.
This reminded me of something that happened to me a couple of weeks ago. My ex and I were saying goodbye to each other in a train station. It was a pretty emotional moment for me, because we'd only broken up a week ago. Out of nowhere, this huge guy interrupts and asks my ex (not both of us, just the male one, of course), which train station he's in. In the middle of a *hug*.
My ex was polite about it, he didn't even seem to realise how rude this other guy had been, and he gave directions. I, however, was livid. "Excuse me," I said as he was walking away, "next time you're asking for directions, could you not ask people when they're hugging?"
He said, "yeah sure, sorry."
"I think it's pretty rude." I continued, because he didn't really seem to be sorry at all.
"Yeah well I think you're pretty rude," is what he said back to me. Apparently, it was rude of me to point out what he'd done.