If you can believe it, reading THIS post what what actually made me want to get on a real computer and comment, but then I got distracted by Sherlock and his cheekbones. (Not really LOL. Sherlock yes, cheekbones no.) I want to comment from my perspective as a composition teacher and someone whose academic specialization is quote-unquote minority literatures. But mostly it's just going to be me explaining why I agree with things other people already commented, probably with some smartassery thrown in. And no, spell check did not let me have that one.
First of all, the interaction(s - but mainly the Tumblr one) you are describing sounds hurtful and bewildering and I am sorry that happened to you! :-( The Internet definitely does not always bring out the best in people.
Re the "tone argument," it is, in my opinion (let's just start off with that), sadly so true!!! My thoughts are going to be in no logical order here, just whatever order I remember them in ...
1. Grrlpup brought up what I think is the most important point: the person with privilege often makes the issue about themselves by taking offense to the other's tone. "But I was well intentioned and trying to be helpful!" (not you -- general comment) Yes, and sometimes the well-intentioned action is not actually helpful; it may be unintentionally hurtful; it may be the fifteenth unintentionally hurtful thing a nice, kind, well-meaning person has said to them that day.
2. Purpose: (comp hat) The purpose of the angry-seeming comment is not necessarily to create change by convincing the opposition that the commenter is right. It may be to vent (i.e. to express the emotion in words rather than by punching someone (who could be said to deserve it)), to share & commiserate about feelings of anger with others in the same community/group, to explore a particular persona in writing, to engage in performance art, or even to make readers angry and defensive and give them the experience of being continually put on the defensive (as the writer's experience may be) ... etc. Also, Intended Audience: may not be the person with privilege who is reading. So it may not make sense to the reader because it is not written for them. So it may make sense to simply not engage in a conversation if one gets the impression that it's not really about/to one. Anyway, my point is, the writer's goal may not be to win friends and influence people.
3. Miscellaneaarts mentioned how some people, especially those with more-rather-than-less privilege, tend to read every critique of society in the "Angry Black Woman" (Angry Gay Person, Angry Worker, Angry Religious Minority, whatever) voice. I just got an extremely striking view of this with my students. I assigned a very mild-toned, rationally-expressed, and non-aggressive essay that critiqued some aspects of privilege. About 3/4 (relatively privileged students) said that what they got out of it was "she was really angry," or "she hates X." I made them go through and point out what they saw as "angry" language, phrasing, tone ... they couldn't do it, and it frustrated them. One guy pointed to a sentence which, when closely read, turned out to be extremely innocuous and verifiably true. This is not to say that some things AREN'T written in Angry Black Woman voice -- but so many people tend to fill that in to ANY critique that it would be very frustrating over time, and probably lead to some understandable (in my opinion; also understandable does not equal "best, most helpful, most enlightened approach") emotional triggering around that particular response.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
Possibly Useless Ramblings
Date: 2014-02-15 08:02 pm (UTC)From:First of all, the interaction(s - but mainly the Tumblr one) you are describing sounds hurtful and bewildering and I am sorry that happened to you! :-( The Internet definitely does not always bring out the best in people.
Re the "tone argument," it is, in my opinion (let's just start off with that), sadly so true!!! My thoughts are going to be in no logical order here, just whatever order I remember them in ...
1. Grrlpup brought up what I think is the most important point: the person with privilege often makes the issue about themselves by taking offense to the other's tone. "But I was well intentioned and trying to be helpful!" (not you -- general comment) Yes, and sometimes the well-intentioned action is not actually helpful; it may be unintentionally hurtful; it may be the fifteenth unintentionally hurtful thing a nice, kind, well-meaning person has said to them that day.
2. Purpose: (comp hat) The purpose of the angry-seeming comment is not necessarily to create change by convincing the opposition that the commenter is right. It may be to vent (i.e. to express the emotion in words rather than by punching someone (who could be said to deserve it)), to share & commiserate about feelings of anger with others in the same community/group, to explore a particular persona in writing, to engage in performance art, or even to make readers angry and defensive and give them the experience of being continually put on the defensive (as the writer's experience may be) ... etc. Also, Intended Audience: may not be the person with privilege who is reading. So it may not make sense to the reader because it is not written for them. So it may make sense to simply not engage in a conversation if one gets the impression that it's not really about/to one. Anyway, my point is, the writer's goal may not be to win friends and influence people.
3. Miscellaneaarts mentioned how some people, especially those with more-rather-than-less privilege, tend to read every critique of society in the "Angry Black Woman" (Angry Gay Person, Angry Worker, Angry Religious Minority, whatever) voice. I just got an extremely striking view of this with my students. I assigned a very mild-toned, rationally-expressed, and non-aggressive essay that critiqued some aspects of privilege. About 3/4 (relatively privileged students) said that what they got out of it was "she was really angry," or "she hates X." I made them go through and point out what they saw as "angry" language, phrasing, tone ... they couldn't do it, and it frustrated them. One guy pointed to a sentence which, when closely read, turned out to be extremely innocuous and verifiably true. This is not to say that some things AREN'T written in Angry Black Woman voice -- but so many people tend to fill that in to ANY critique that it would be very frustrating over time, and probably lead to some understandable (in my opinion; also understandable does not equal "best, most helpful, most enlightened approach") emotional triggering around that particular response.
(ok, hold for part 2...)