It seems true within feminism and without, that we assume mothers and marginalized women are stupid. Obviously, it's not worth arguing with people like that, but few of them will out themselves. Do you have any tips for telling when someone legitimately doesn't understand us vs. refuses to listen?
Fabulous points and worth an immediate reread! As someone who is very uncomfortable with conflict (and then sometimes engages when I shouldn't waste my time), I love your suggestions for clarifying what people are actually saying before arguing.
As a point of clarification, on this paragraph: "Members of dominant communities stand to lose less. When a person seems persuadable, they should engage in good faith in the art of persuasion—because these are serious issues affecting real people’s lives...Dunking on someone and bowing out as soon as they say something mildly problematic is a recipe for losing consensus."
I understand you to be saying that members of dominant communities should stick with an argument longer if they can, if the person seems to be in good faith, and especially if a member of the marginalized community being affected is not present or has had to leave the conversation. Am I reading that right?
Members of dominant communities have an obligation to persuade the persuadable. It has nothing to do with whether members of marginalized communities are present, though they should always follow these folks' lead and certainly stick up for them.
It seems true within feminism and without, that we assume mothers and marginalized women are stupid. Obviously, it's not worth arguing with people like that, but few of them will out themselves. Do you have any tips for telling when someone legitimately doesn't understand us vs. refuses to listen?
I think you should assume that, almost every time, it's that they're refusing to listen.
Fantastic article. This should be required reading for anyone who wishes to post/comment online.
Fabulous points and worth an immediate reread! As someone who is very uncomfortable with conflict (and then sometimes engages when I shouldn't waste my time), I love your suggestions for clarifying what people are actually saying before arguing.
As a point of clarification, on this paragraph: "Members of dominant communities stand to lose less. When a person seems persuadable, they should engage in good faith in the art of persuasion—because these are serious issues affecting real people’s lives...Dunking on someone and bowing out as soon as they say something mildly problematic is a recipe for losing consensus."
I understand you to be saying that members of dominant communities should stick with an argument longer if they can, if the person seems to be in good faith, and especially if a member of the marginalized community being affected is not present or has had to leave the conversation. Am I reading that right?
Members of dominant communities have an obligation to persuade the persuadable. It has nothing to do with whether members of marginalized communities are present, though they should always follow these folks' lead and certainly stick up for them.