Last night at our panel, Roxie bravely talked about a moment when she got into a big argument with her uncle about whether a woman had the capacity to be president. He was arguing that women were too emotional. She was arguing, of course, that emotion could be a fundamental tool in leadership positions. In the midst of this whole thing, of course, Roxie felt like she was going to burst into tears (she held it in until later).
Her brave admission reminded me of my own struggle within intellectual arguments, especially in my early 20s at Barnard and Columbia Colleges, to manage my own emotions. I remember one class, in particular, in which a classmate and I got into a fiery argument about the politics of language, ebonics, poverty, and education. I teared up in spite of myself and felt frustrated for the rest of the day that I'd let my emotions show.
Today I have more empathy for that 19-year-old version of me. I think that emotions, as Roxie argued, are a critical part of how I process the world, understand ideas and issues, and formulate my own arguments. In this still male-dominated realm of intellectual debate (just look at the op-ed pages of any major newspaper), the standard is still clear: emotions, and most certainly crying, don't have a place.
But the older I get, the more comfortable I am in my own skin and with my own ideas, the more I think that's a bullshit sexist paradigm. Of course it's important to be self-aware and manage one's emotions during an argument, but I think pretending as if the issue you're arguing about has no personal significance or emotional resonance is actually a disempowering and, of course, inauthentic place to come from. My power these days comes from combining both intellectual rigor with emotional authenticity.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Personal is Political: Crying While Arguing .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16885
If men were allowed to cry in general, men would consider tears as equal to muscle.
Plus, tears are supposed to relieve stress/toxins so it really has nothing to do about whether you're strong or not.
I read that women's tears have more cortisol (stress hormone) in them that men's. So that's why we cry more than men and why crying can feel so cathartic.
It is simply dumping excess stress. Like sweating, but for stress instead of heat. It shouldn't be regarded as having any shame to it unless you do it at a time or in a manner that causes a physical or social problem. Anyway it's much healthier than bottling it up until you lash out by taking drugs or getting in fights.
"Of course it's important to be self-aware and manage one's emotions during an argument, but I think pretending as if the issue you're arguing about has no personal significance or emotional resonance is actually a disempowering and, of course, inauthentic place to come from."
yeah, but you can't let your emotions get in the way of rational thinking.
For instance, what about a woman who have had an abortion and years later, she regrets it? Does that give her the right to be anti-choice and demand that other females be prevented from having the right to get an abortion? Because of HER own emotions based on her experience from years ago.
Just saying.
I think she has the right to her own experience. I don't think she has the right to legislate it.
But as much as I disagree, I think she can emotionally advocate to other women that they might regret having an abortion, as that's what happened to her.
I do not understand what you are saying here. Is there ever a moment when a decision is made without any bit of emotion? I would say that it would be impossible to find and impossible to prove. Even those decisions that look rational or lead to some sort of rational conclusion are full of some sort of emotion, even if that is tempered with logic. [and I would also argue that calling something "rational" is completely and totally subjective, probably something you base on your own emotion about the issue at hand]
And I do think that, even if we don't agree with that woman's logic or rationale, she does have the right to make decisions based on experience and emotion, as much as anyone does.
If you need evidence that men lack control of their emotions just as much if not more than other, look at the stats on violent crimes. i am so tired of people dismissing the fact that anger is an emotion. It's not just the emotion of anger that men lose control of, but, that is certainly one that they tend to lose control of more often and more disastrously than women.
Of course this is all generalizing.
The truth is some people control their emotions better than others and sometimes that is good, sometimes, it results in a stifled, boring person.
Joy is an emotion as well. I hope we all learn to express it more freely.
Thank you for saying this. I hate that women are thought to be the "emotional" ones just because we may cry more so than men. Men show emotion in their own way too. I once dated a guy who would punch a door frame until his knuckles bled or throw beer bottles across a room until they shattered to show his frustration during an argument. In that case, I think my crying was at least a less harmful way to show emotion. Even screaming at someone is a way to show emotion, and I've certainly met lots of men who do that.
I don't see what this proves since murder and assault are looked at even more negatively then someone breaking down into tears.
I don't think anyone would ever argue that a man getting mad and murdering or assaulting someone is ok.
Nobody would argue that men's violence is okay. Well, unless that violence is against women, gays, transpeople, or people of color, and the person happens to be a victim-blamer, which is a lot of people. The commenters above are just saying that men's violence is not seen to be "emotional," when it is indeed based on emotions like anger and frustration.
You think so?
Some guy loses it and gets in a fist fight.
Another guy loses it and bursts into tears in front of his friends.
Who do you think is doing to be mocked?
Going, not doing.
By most people I know the person who started the fight.
Maybe by 16 year old boys they might prefer differently. But among adults? No way. The fighting is much worse.
Obviously, the guy who cried will be ridiculed.
Because it's manly to punch somebody in the face - but it's womanly and/or gay to cry.
That's a lesson every American male learns by the time they're old enough to go to first grade (that's certainly when I learned it - and the absolute last time I ever cried in public).
Generally, when some men are being hysterically selfish, they simply call it "rationality". Or maybe even logic: "Woman, if you don't do what I want, you're being hysterical!"
That's how the trick is done.
Also, it's astonishingly easy to stay detached from someone elses pain. As in, "Gee, woman, you're really overemotional about those women't rights! As if they were really important."
I absolutely think that men are as likely to be influenced in their argument by emotion as women, and that this tendency is disguised by sexist rhetoric. If men feel emotional in argument and get loud, impassioned and intransigent they often get called passionate and steadfast -- they don't often get called emotional. But that's what it is; strong feelings about the substance of what is being discussed, coming out in argument. If women cry, they get called "emotional."
If we're honest, all these things are expressions of emotion, and getting louder or getting intransigent is not innately better than crying. Nor is emotion all bad. Passion is good; I'm passionate about the arguments I make in my work all the time, and I prefer to work with other lawyers who are passionate.
People are not robots. Few people actually argue about things they care about with detachment, though some fake it well, and I think we should stop pretending that to do so is either normal or optimal.
You're exactly right. Both genders have emotions - all of them; both genders are encultured to express them - but we're encultured differently. Men are permitted fewer avenues - physical acting out and anger are darned near the only ones. That doesn't mean men feel less and it's as much an insult to men to suggest they do as it is an insult to women to suggest they can't be rational.
Ex. off of your post....doesnt Glenn Beck cry alot on his show? If he were a woman, I can guess what they'd say about him!
"Of course it's important to be self-aware and manage one's emotions during an argument, but I think pretending as if the issue you're arguing about has no personal significance or emotional resonance is actually a disempowering and, of course, inauthentic place to come from."
This. The critique of women's uncontrollable emotions comes from the bullshit tenets of rationality and objectivity. That anyone debating a topic should be emotionally detached from it and an objective observer. This is a carryover from the times when women were only debated ABOUT instead of participants IN the debates. I wonder how "unemotional" men would be about a debate over reinstating the draft (not that we should reinstate the draft or make men upset for no reason, but I hope y'all see my point).
the point wasnt that men are less emotional than women, but that emotions, when making a decision, is not a good thing. i think your argument only bolsters that point with anger is coupled with decision making. i don't know anyone that denies anger is an emotion
sorry, this was in reply to Hara above
Sounds like you feel strongly about this. I fail to see, however, the connection between "objectivity" and "rationality" and the exclusion of female voices. Are you making the argument that objectivity and rationality were devised to keep women out of the conversation or that they were emphasized as further evidence as to why women should continue to be excluded from the debate? I could be persuaded as to the latter but I don't see any evidence for the former.
Don't really feel like typing an explanation of Western Enlightenment thinking to you. Go look it up, and use a feminist analysis yourself.
I'm very into the feminist politics of knowledge. The first thing you should read about this topic is definitely Sandra Harding's Is Science Multicultural? Emily Martin, Donna Haraway, etc.
I was asking which view you hold as I could not infer it from your response. From what I've read arguments for the former leave me unconvinced. Arguments for the latter, however, are quite a bit more persuasive.
I believe both, but the first is not as simple as that rationality and objectivity were DEVISED to keep women out, but that men created it for themselves in a way that did not apply to women. So, if you wanted, you could read my argument as accusing male thinkers of purposefully keeping women out. However, at the time, women weren't really considered "thinkers" the way they are now, so I doubt they were actively devising to keep out women.
Yeah, I agree with DBT, emotion doesn't play a role in debate. Emotion might play a role in rhetoric and in selling a point of view --supporters & critics of Obama alike frequently chide him for being so dispassionate--but when emotion displaces logic it just leads irrational decisions. We already have too many of these on both sides of the political spectrum.
That's a false dichotomy. Emotion and logic are not opposites and one does not cancel out the other. I don't know what is gained from claiming that logical decisions aren't also emotional ones. And can't emotional decisions be logical? If not, why not?
Courtney is right on this. Why are we so quick to dismiss the emotional side of making decisions?
Logic and emotion ARE mutually exclusive. Logic by definition means a decision is made based purely on facts with no regard whatsoever for emotions. That's the very root of it's meaning.
No, I'm pretty sure you're just making that up.
Actually logic and emotion are by definition exclusive, thanks to Aristotle. Of course, just because we define logic and emotion as separate from each other doesn't mean they actually are. Definitions do not change the shape the human psyche.
I'd like to see actual proof that they two are mutually exclusive.
Logic and emotion are not the same thing. That doesn't by any means make them mutually exclusive, which suggests that if one is present, the other cannot be. That they are not mutually exclusive is clearly evident in the fact that every day people make decisions based partly on the facts in evidence and partly on how they feel. Sheesh. That's how we live - using both logic and emotion in various ratios all day every day.
Obviously emotions and logic are not the same thing. If I implied that in any way I apologize,but I do understand that logic and emotion are not the same. I simply meant that they are constantly present in humans and the presence of one does not mean the absence of the other. We always use both logos and pathos when making decisions throughout the day.
"I love X so I am going to be nice to her to make her like me."
"I like chocolate so I am going to eat a chocolate bar."
"I get a weird feeling from that guy in this deserted street so I'm going to step into that pub while he passes."
Logical acts can be based on an emotional premise.
No. Logic means that something makes sense on an intellectual basis. The definition does not preclude emotional involvment. Don't make up definitions of words just so that it fits the point that you would like to believe.
From the dictionary: "Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner." I don't see any mention of emotions; it does not imply that emotional is the opposite.
Which carries with it the false assumption that emotions do not factually exist.
Which, as anyone who has emotions and admits it to themselves knows, is total and complete bullshit.
Pretending that one's emotions don't influence one's decisions is not only not a strength, it is a very distinct weakness--by not admitting one has emotions, one therefore renders oneself incapable of examining them. Evangelically "logical" people are often the most impossible people to get to change their minds with a presentation of facts, because while admittedly emotional people will realize that their emotions are emotions and facts are facts, unadmittedly emotional people will think their emotions are facts and the facts are more facts, or, if they don't mesh with their emotions, that those facts are merely *other* people's emotions. (Hence the ubiquitous habit of some men saying they're bringing in an "objective" viewpoint when insisting that something you just said happened to you couldn't POSSIBLY have actually happened to you.)
I mean... what decisions do you actually have to make in life where your emotions are not to be considered? Even when we make decisions that we don't like making, isn't it usually under the assumption that it WILL make us happier LATER? How do we measure what "benefits us" if it's not, at least, what we believe will make us happier? Why the hell have feminism at all, if it's not "logical" to advocate for equal rights on the basis that having unequal ones makes us miserable?
Nobody said emotions don`t influence decisions or that emotions shouldn`t influence decisions. But they are mutually exclusive with logic. NOthing will convince me otherwise.
Perhaps my position comes from my field of computers. Computers execute logic. Literally that`s all they do is evaluate ANDs, ORs, IFs, etc. It`s all logic based purely on facts with no emotion. That`s what a computer does.
Is a computer better then a human? Only in certain things. But overall not. Regardless these are all just facts, not attacks on anyone nor suggestions that anyone change anything.
I'm really confused on what your point actually is. When you say mutually exclusive, that means that one cannot ever be logical while also being emotional, or that one cannot be emotional if they are being logical. That is what it means to be mutually exclusive. One thing precludes the others' existence. Your example of computers that only use logic and no emotion does not prove or even suggest that these two things are mutually exclusive. I'm thinking that maybe instead of mutually exclusive you meant to just say they are two different things? And that perhaps they could both exist simultaneously and both affect the same thought process? And that sometimes this might be a good thing? Because I think that's the point that the others are trying to get at.
cattrack2 didn't set up a false dichotomy. The argument was that when emotion displaces logic it leads to irrational decisions. That's not the same thing as saying emotion and logic are mutually exclusive.
Is it sexist to feel manipulated with repeated interactions with a woman in which she cries while she's arguing?
Depends on the topic and the person, probably. If people want to argue about abortion rights or rape laws with me, if they go far enough they're probably going to see tears every time, because reproductive rights and sexual violence are very touchy and near to my heart. For someone else, equal pay legislation might elicit the same response. Crying isn't manipulation, it's an honest response. But people who cry to get their way in an argument are indeed just as bad as people who claim emotion has no place. It can't be EITHER rationality OR emotion. It's both/and.
If you feel she's using it as a tool by which she gets control over the argument by using those emotions, no. If you just want to dismiss her because she has emotion and is passionate, yes.
I think that can only really be determined by patterning. If there's a patterning of emotional manipulation, then there's nothing really sexist about feeling she's using emotion in that manner. Men do this as well, when they get loud/angry in arguments.
Crying versus getting angry is really more socialization than anything else. Men can get angry because it's more "okay"; women can cry because it's more "okay" to do so. If we open up both sides of that gendering, I think we'd find that both are common to both genders.
I once worked with someone who would try to use her emotions as a trump card. My response would often be, "I see you feel strongly about this, but let me explain why I think this other way would be better..." She would respond that I wasn't "validating" her emotions and I quickly came to understand that for her "validation" meant nothing short of abandoning my position and agreeing with hers even though she could not, by her own admission, marshall any evidence or put forth an argument to support her case. And this, I think, is the dividing line we need to be aware of. We all have emotions and I don't believe we need to suppress or hide them. However I think what should be clear is that emotions in and of themselves do not make an argument any stronger or weaker. Whether we "feel strongly" about something or not, we still need to put forth an argument to make our case if we are to be effective and persuasive communicators. If we use our emotional state as a trump card or veto then we lose all credibility and only reinforce the negative stereotypes that are so prevalent today.
Personally I don't trust my emotions alone to guide me. I have learned through experience that I can be dispassionate and wrong or I can be emotionally invested and wrong. The correctness of my argument or belief has little bearing on how strongly I feel about my argument or the subject in general. Instead I use my emotional investment as a barometer of how much time and effort I should expend to actually learn about the issue and test my own thinking on the matter. It is precisely because I feel so strongly about a subject that I feel I have an extra burden to be critical of and validate my own arguments. It is too easy to let my emotions cause me to go deaf to other perspectives and for that reason I work extra hard to hear and critically evaluate opposing viewpoints as well as my own.
"However I think what should be clear is that emotions in and of themselves do not make an argument any stronger or weaker."
Hmm. Perhaps OUR emotions don't affect the strength of an argument but I think when arguing about social issues emotions certainly could be used to make an argument stronger. For example, if it was somehow found out that a certain group we are trying to help are perfectly happy the way they are, wouldn't that affect decision making? I guess that might still sound logical but so many decisions are made without actually considering the feelings of the people who will be affected by these decisions. Instead decisions are made by "logic".
And I would say the emotions of the person arguing can have a place as long as he or she can keep in mind that he or she is one person with one story and not everyone feels guilty after getting getting an abortion for example. Ideally in that situation it would be acknowledged that abortion has affected at least one person negatively while the woman who had the abortion would acknowledge the fact that she is in the minority.
In an argument an emotional reaction can cut both ways. That's why I believe it is important to marshall as much supporting evidence as you can for the correctness of your position. Sure display of emotion can sway some to be more sympathetic to your position, but if all you have is emotion you can also be just as easily dismissed by your opponent. I'm fine with you drawing me in by your emotional investment but to convince me you're going to have to sway me with facts.
Was that like working for a man that YELLS?
Yelling is a show of EMOTION!!!!!
lol
; )
Yes, I worked for a deli where the owner blew his top all the time. One time the cooler repair guy wasn't finished in time for the lunch rush so he lost it and threw the guy out and told him to take the beverage cooler with him. For weeks our customers had no drinks to purchase with their lunches (and we lost a lot of revenue).
Another time the girl who delivered lunches to a local business got a better job and quit on short notice so instead of sending someone else or canceling that one day as he tried to adjust schedules or hire someone, he simply discontinued the delivery service. It was good revenue and he just threw it away because he was pissed that this girl quit.
The thing that guy taught me was to ignore whatever he said when he lost it because he couldn't both express his emotions and make sensible decisions at the same time.
(to quote Will Farrell)
I AM IN A GLASS CASE OF EMOTION!!!!!!
sorry for the derail, but it's all I could think of.
Ron where are you?
But sometimes the disagreement is about something that is not factual, but is emotional or subjective. You can argue all day about how good Brussels sprouts are for me (assuming they have some nutritive value), but I find them disgusting. I don't need a factual argument to be "right" in asserting that I'm not going to eat them. (Mind you, I could argue that it's logical to not eat something that makes me feel like throwing up.) But a position that's emotionally founded is not innately a less worthy or important position than one that's factually founded; it depends.
Is it sexist to feel manipulated with repeated interactions with a woman in which she cries while she's arguing?
I'm not sure why this would be sexist. I think crying is the flip side of yelling & cussing belligerently, they are as equally unfair as they are equally unproductive.
I'm not so sure about this. I can control whether or not I yell (or stop myself when I realize I'm doing it), but I can't always control whether I cry.
We talk a lot about 'anger management' and 'anger control' because its important. We even have classes on the subject.
I don't know that crying in professional situations happens nearly as much, so I would hesitate to call it a problem. I know of men who cried after being (justifiably) berated by their bosses. All that happened is that it pumped up the bosses' egos ("See that, I'm tough!") while undermining their own careers.
I'm not suggesting that there's no room for emotion in a professional setting (in fact in reasonable doses its very effective) only that it be moderated to avoid either extreme.
Not taking emotions into account when living life/doing a job leads to things like voting against anti-rape legislation. Is that really where we want to go?!
Not taking emotions into account when living life/doing a job leads to things like voting against anti-rape legislation. Is that really where we want to go?!
Huh? I don't see the connection there. There's a rational argument to be made for anti-rape legislation - based on the notion that a person's body is his/her own and has the right to choose who to have sex with, and therefore sex without consent is a violation of the right to bodily autonomy. Though it's an emotional subject, particularly for those who've experienced rape, it's hardly an argument that requires emotion. Reason can get a person to anti-rape legislation just as well as emotion.
Hm. I don't exactly disagree ... but isn't there always some emotion - that is, empathy and caring - underlying the concept that person A even gives a sh*t about what happens to person B? That's how you get, for instance, people who aren't gay to back legislation that brings gays something closer to having equal rights, or that led white voters to vote against racist legislation. The personal stake is so vague as to be almost meaningless - the motivation is one of caring.
I don't know that empathy even needs to necessarily enter into it. If one believes, as I and many others do, in the notion of rights as inherent to the person, then respecting another person's right to bodily autonomy (and putting laws in place that protect everyone's right to bodily autonomy) is a moral decision, which doesn't necessarily mean it's an emotional or empathetic one. Keep in mind that I'm not arguing that emotion shouldn't come into play in this situation - just that it isn't necessary, and that the lack of it doesn't lead (as the above commenter claims) to opposition to anti-rape legislation. One can be perfectly "rational" - whatever the hell that means - and still strongly support laws respecting every person's right to bodily autonomy.
Not letting your own emotions influence your decision shouldn't mean failing to consider other people's emotions, nor should it mean failing to consider the impact of the decision on your emotions.
I think when people talk about 'not making an emotional decision' they mean not letting the emotions you feel in that instant over rule your considered decision. They don't mean failing to consider the emotional repercussions of a decision.
But why does only the victim have bodily autonomy? Why doesn't the rapist have the autonomy to choose to have sex with whoever they want? If everyone has the right to choose who they have sex with, why is it that only people who rape don't get that right? Why is it only infringing on rights when a person rapes, not when a person is prevented from raping?
See what happens when you leave emotions out of the equation? Feel free to keep arguing. I really want to see if it is possible to take emotions completely out of the equation when discussing the morality of rape. I really would love to see somebody unpack my argument to make in invalid logically, because the idea that it is logical makes me sick.
Have you heard the expression "your right to swing your fist stops at my face"? This is bodily autonomy as a logical precept. Rapist has the right to get all the hard-ons he wants on his body; he doesn't have the right to inflict them on my body.
The idea that my emotions are less important than the logic behind why I should not be raped is insulting. You can present both logical and emotional reasons for for why rape is wrong. Saying that the victims feelings do not matter unless logic backs them up is insulting and cold, period.
Nobody said the victim's feelings don't matter. YOU said " I really want to see if it is possible to take emotions completely out of the equation when discussing the morality of rape. I really would love to see somebody unpack my argument to make in invalid logically, because the idea that it is logical makes me sick.", and yes, it is entirely possible to make a logical emotion-free argument against rape. Which Terrils did. If I have bodily autonomy and you have bodily autonomy that means our bodies cannot interact without the consent of both of us. That's the emotion-free logical argument for the immorality of rape.
That doesn't mean that emotions have no place in discussions of rape or the impact of rape, or that they are an unimportant, but you asked specifically for a demonstration of how rape could be considered immoral if emotions weren't involved, and then called someone "cold" (which generally means unemotional) when they didn't bring emotions into it.
In this case rational thought based on the values of our society in which we respect your rights not to be a victim of physical violence matches up with your feelings about the issue. I think that the decision should be made rationally because we can't rely on your feelings on the issue to be right. I'm sure that some rapists feel very strongly that they should be able to use women as objects and I'm sure that they're also quite upset that people don't respect their feelings. In this case you feel very strongly that shouldn't be raped, which I agree with, but maybe you might feel very strongly that non-whites shouldn't have equal rights in the United States. Because so many people can feel so strongly about things that are so wrong, I think that it's best that we leave feelings out of our legislation, but I think that they rarely are.
I think that there are differences between emotions and values.
Please explain.
There are lots of logical, dispassionate and non emotional reasons to be opposed to rape and to want strong laws against rape. It isn't just an emotional thing.
Not taking emotions into account when living life/doing a job leads to things like voting against anti-rape legislation. Is that really where we want to go?!
Slippery slope fallacies seem popular today.
I have never commented before on any blog, but I had to contribute something I learned recently.
I was speaking to my therapist about this exact issue, and she said that some people tear up when they are angry/pissed/mad. She said in her practice women often do this. I don't want to make any gender generalizations, but just share this insight.
Since learning this I have felt much more in control of my emotions. What I had interpreted as weakness or emotional vulnerability in the past is really my own anger manifesting in a physical way. Since learning this I feel much more able to argue through the tears.
Anyways, just wanted to share in the hopes someone else may feel more in control and empowered through this tidbit.
I'm a crier. I get choked up when I feel stressed, am nervous, am angry, feel like I'm being attacked... the list goes on and on.
Some people see this as manipulative, but fuck it, I've seen other behavior, like angry behavior, that's manipulative too. That doesn't get called out nearly as much as crying does.
I usually say something like, "Don't mind my tears, it's just something I do when I feel strongly about a subject." But it still annoys me because I feel like I undermine myself when doing it.
This is one of the reasons that I prepare for meetings or discussions by writing things out. I prefer to write down my thoughts or arguments or expectations/demands and offer it in writing prior to any verbal discussion because I'm afraid I'll cry. Can't always do this, though.
That's just one way I've learned to deal with it, but I eagerly look forward to a time when crying is much more accepted and not dismissed or diminished as "manipulative."
Someone who is overly happy is manipulative. How many times in a movie or tv show has there been a scene where somebody was going to say or do something but the other person it would affect was really happy and so they couldn't stand to say the bad news for fear of the person becoming UNhappy?
Um ... that's not manipulation. If I'm in a good mood and someone else doesn't want to ruin it, how does that make me manipulative? If a person's faking a mood, or acting in a certain way with the conscious intent of causing others to do what that person wishes, that is attempted manipulation.
...Are you me? ;)
There is a personality typing system I am obsessed with and it has really helped me pick up on when certain people (usually men, but sometimes women) will present their arguments in a scholarly or impartial way when they are, in fact, entirely fueled by their emotions.
For example, take Glenn Beck's attack on Baltimore schools for having "Meatless Mondays" on their school cafeterias. He might frame it as an issue of indoctrination and freedom or choice, but it really comes down to his gut desire to have a hamburger how he wants it when he wants it.
That's a really good point. I think a lot of arguments are presented as rational when they really are fueled by emotions.
I had to run out the door earlier so I wasn't able to respond to you...
That kind of emotional and intellectual dishonesty can be ugly and dangerous on its own, but when it senses weakness in another person, it can be downright cruel.
I can think of a time I was arguing with a friend and he was playing that game. Pretending to be a scholar but just trying to protect his own interests and feelings. So his arguments kept changing, he kept weaseling around. He didn't care about the truth. And I got progressively more frustrated, more angry, more visibly upset. And the more my voice shook and my face reddened, the stronger he looked. He dismissed me for being "hysterical," and, almost immediately, he won.
God, that hurt.
And you can't fight it. You can't fight being called hysterical without proving their point.
Anger is good and passion has its time and place, but to get ahead, we have to learn how to keep our cool. That's just how it is.
That's a really good point. I think a lot of arguments are presented as rational when they really are fueled by emotions.
Part of what's in play here, though, is that tears are coercive-- the argument isn't about what you're saying anymore. We do live at a time and in a place, mostly, when it's really, totally out of bounds to continue to fight with someone once they're crying.
I once dated a woman who was in a very difficult personal position that left me feeling like I couldn't break up with her even when the relationship was totally screwed up. And once or twice, late at night in the middle of stupid fights where I felt completely trapped, I, you know, let a tear or two go. And she said, the second time, that crying is coercive: that her anger was invalidated by my distress. And that's right. And that's why a lot of people discourage crying and disrespect cryers, male and female: you can't have your fight with someone who cries, even if you're right.
Also, people who can't control their anger are disrespected just as much as people who can't stop themselves from crying. people who get too angry are "psychos" who you "break up with" and are regarded as "dangerous," even if they've never gotten physically violent.
if tears are coercive so is yelling, stomping, sniffing, etc.
again, remember, anger is an emotion.
Men use it all the time, women too, but, not as often and not with the same stigma. Stigma, maybe, if it goes far enough to fall into the category of abuse, but, will they be accused of lacking control of their emotions the way a woman who tears up ?
I agree yelling, anger, stomping, sniffling IS coercive. I don't think anyone is arguing that they aren't.
The point is that those emotional responses are equivalent to crying. They are just different ways to express the same thing. If we agree those emotional responses are coercive then we must also agree crying is coercive for the same reason.
I don't believe that's true. I may feel coerced when someone is yelling at me or stomping, b/c I would fear for my safety. I am not likely to fear for my safety simply because someone cries while we argue.
Anger is usually directed outward, though. You yell AT someone. You generally don't cry at someone, you just cry. People cry when they're alone (probably more often than when they're around others, actually) and there's not one there to coerce. People don't usually yell when they're by themselves, and if they do they're usually still yelling at someone else who's not there.
How are tears innately coercive? If a person can't help crying when upset - if it's involuntary - it's like saying a sneeze is coercive.
Those who manufacture tears when it's convenient are another group altogether.
That's a big slippery slope though. If someone can't control their crying, how can we then say that someone CAN control their anger? Especially since the premise of this thread seems to be that the 2 are just different ways of expressing the same emotions.
Because yelling is a vocal choice - you must intentionally act in order to speak, and the volume of that speech is entirely under your control. If you wish to stop yelling, all you have to do is stop speaking.
Crying is, at least sometimes, not a choice. I have been in at least two circumstances where it was inappropriate to cry, and I very very much wanted not to cry - but I did, because I couldn't help it. Crying is a physiological response that at least sometimes cannot be controlled. I think it's more comparable to urination than yelling, in this sense - in most cases, you can hold it in until you get to a place where it's appropriate to do it, but sometimes you just literally can't help it.
Also, crying doesn't usually cause people to think you're about to hurt them - violent displays of anger do. I think we can clearly delineate between crying (which does not physically harm anyone else) and acting on anger in ways that does physically harm someone or cause them to fear that you will physically attack them.
Absolute rationalism is just as dangerous as allowing your emotions to color your argument too strongly. One is outright dishonest and the other takes the debate to very personal places that will bring discomfort to everyone involved.
Unfortunately I find the latter to be the more common occurrence (from both sexes).
Unfortunately, when you allow emotion to enter your discussions or arguments, you leave yourself open for someone to call you down on your "tone" in an attempt to bring you down a few notches and assert their superiority. With some people, only they are allowed to care enough about an issue to bring emotion into it.
Thanks for posting this! I tear up relatively easily - whether from being sad, happy, angry, whatever. In arguments it is usually from being angry or frustrated that I cry and then, yes, I feel as if my points are moot simply because of my tears.
For myself, I am learning that sexism is an extremely emotional topic. I didn't become a feminist because I rationally understood patriarchy...I became a feminist because I was pissed off, I was sad, I was sick of the world, and I FELT that the way things were/are is wrong and that there is a better option.
So at its beginnings, my feminism was solely based on feelings. As I grow into it, I am learning the rational arguments of feminism. Now I can more often than not hold an argument without tears and with lots of rationality.
This reminds me of the time when a woman I know was written up and told that she should not be made a manager because she was 'too emotional'. This was based on the fact that she started crying when she was yelled at by her boss (who admitted he hated women) while she was 8 months pregnant. She went on maternity leave, and did not return until 5 years later, and never pursued management positions again. This was in the 80s, but this shit still happens today.
A few other people have said this as well, but emotion's biggest role in debate should be causing one to do their research.
As someone with strong opinions and emotional responses I have had to work very hard to control my emotions in debates. And also learned not to rely on people having the same emotional reactions as me. Because frankly, it didn't work.
Now, I can feel just as strongly about a subject, and I don't need to hide that I feel strongly, but I can maintain my self control, which keeps my thoughts clear, and has made debating much more productive, in both being able to persuade others better when I they are incorrect, or changing my mind when I am incorrect.
When arguing, we must separate what makes us human, that is logic and emotion. We must shut emotions off completely and this is totally possible if you aren't an over emotional pussy.
For example, if you have a co-worker that is great for the company and they are sexually harassing you, you should abandon emotions and think for a second "well, they are definitely really good for the company and they could get fired if I tell on them, so it is in the company's best interest to not report them and for me to just suck it up and stop having negative feelings."
Or if you are in the U.S. and want to have a baby of your own. It is illogical to have a baby of your own because there are plenty of babies and children and teens that need to be adopted, plus if anymore children in the U.S. are born it will only add another carbon footprint to the earth.
Or when arguing whether men should care about the rape epidemic against women. You should not bring the fact that their sister or girlfriend or mother could be affected because that is appealing to emotions. We should care about the fact that women are raped only for logical reasons, such as the fact that women who experience trauma may not be as effective a worker if they keep having flashbacks and crying about it. Instead of "it could happen to your daughter" we should say "it could happen to your employee and then she might have to skip work due to trauma and that is bad for the company."
I get that you are trying to reduce the logic over emotion argument to absurdity, but you seem to be completely misunderstanding the argument itself.
I haven't seen anybody here claim that emotional concerns should be excluded from all decision making. There is a big difference, as somebody upthread pointed out, between making a logical decision while considering emotional repercussions and making an emotional decision. If I am being sexually harassed by my coworker and choose to smash the windows of his car, that might be an emotional decision. If instead I think to myself, "Allowing this person to continue to harass me will be detrimental to my emotional well-being. I would like to maintain my emotional well-being; therefore, I will report him to human resources," that is a perfectly rational decision, based on a consideration of the emotional ramifications of my actions, and I don't think anybody is objecting to that kind of reasoning.
There are plenty of logical reasons to call for the firing of a sexual harasser - the fact that sexual harassment reduces the productivity of female employees and make it harder to recruit and retain female talent being just two good examples.
There are logical reasons to be against rape too - because humans have an inalienable right to bodily integrity and to refuse sexual contact with people they don't want to have sex with.
Emotionalism is not a sound basis for policy decisions.
"My power these days comes from combining both intellectual rigor with emotional authenticity."
Love this... and find encouragement in it not to be ashamed if my eyes fill with tears while debating something I am passionate about.
I tend to cry when I feel strongly about things, and I'm very bad at controlling tears once I start feeling that I'm going to cry. One of my best friends, who I often talk to when I'm upset, says that he's jealous of how deeply I feel things. We've laughed about how I'm jealous of his self-control and equanimity and he's jealous of my emotional freedom. I'm not sure I agree with his assessment of the situation, although I really appreciate the fact that he thinks my emotional responses to things are totally valid. I think what he may be jealous of is that I'm socially allowed to cry when I'm upset. It is so much more socially acceptable for women to cry than men.
"Of course it's important to be self-aware and manage one's emotions during an argument, but I think pretending as if the issue you're arguing about has no personal significance or emotional resonance is actually a disempowering and, of course, inauthentic place to come from. My power these days comes from combining both intellectual rigor with emotional authenticity."
Right on! I have never seen this put better, and I agree 100%.
"Of course it's important to be self-aware and manage one's emotions during an argument, but I think pretending as if the issue you're arguing about has no personal significance or emotional resonance is actually a disempowering and, of course, inauthentic place to come from. My power these days comes from combining both intellectual rigor with emotional authenticity."
Right on! I have never seen this put better, and I agree 100%.
more like, 200%!
What makes it inauthentic? Shouldn't we evaluate the ideas on their own merits and not where they came from.
Why does crying about something make it real and personable.
Seems infantile to me.
It is inauthentic to pretend that something does not have emotional significance to you when it does. Or to pretend that you can truly divorce yourself from that emotional significance.
I may be having an argument with someone who claims to have no emotional attachment to our subject matter. Why should I have to met them on their terms and pretend that I too have no emotional attachment to the subject matter? My emotional attachment to a subject matter does not necessarily make my reasoning less sound. In fact, it may indicate that I have personal experience that the other arguer does not have. My emotions my demonstrate that I am more intimately attached to our subject matter and that the person I am arguing with may have a complete blind-spot.
Often when I am asked to set aside my emotions in arguments, it is because my partner wants to have a completely "rational" argument about the merits of a law for example, that will not effect him or his close friends directly, but will effect me or my close friends directly. Yes, we can have a rationale argument about the merits of that law, but logic is not actually the only thing that we consider when we are making decisions. It's weirdly artificial to pretend like it is.
You say "pretend" and "claim not to" have any emotional significance to a subject. Who are you to tell someone how they feel or don't feel.
Why does not being emotional "blind" you or being as such allow you to see. Emotion isn't a prerequisite for a good argument. Emotion however does show where you lie and wearing your heart on your sleeve allows others to be able to manipulate that.
I'm not saying emotions aren't pertinent to how we feel about things but they aren't valuable in backing up an argument cause those emotions are yours alone and not easily transferable to another person so how can that person relate. Emotions allow visceral reactions but you have to back them up with something more concrete and using reason.
I find in interactions like that where the purpose is to defeat your opponents argument, emotions are exploitable through rhetoric whilst not so much with rational thinking.
I actually used the word "claims" to make a point you make in your comment; I don't know for sure that they don't have an emotional attachment to an argument. Characterizing it as a "claim" does not mean that I don't take their word for it.
You asked "What about crying makes it real?"
I was responding to that when I said that it's not "crying" that makes something authentic. It's the acknowledgment that there are emotions in play as well.
You are arguing that acknowledging emotions while making a rational argument weakens one's position, because one's opponent can exploit those emotions.
I am arguing that acknowledging emotions while making a rational argument does not *prevent* someone from being able to make a rational argument and it may in fact help expose a weakness in my opponents argument.
For example, if I am arguing with someone about shield laws in rape cases (that prevent a woman's past sexual history from coming into play) and my opponent is opposed to them, I might get very upset. When I realize that I am very upset, I might end up explaining to him that the reason this is very upsetting to me is there is a long history of women's previous sexual history being used to discredit them, even when it has no relation to the case. My opponent may not have been aware of these facts (that's what I mean by a blind spot). I think becoming emotional during a debate often indicates that I am discussing something from a completely different perspective than someone else and sometimes that means that I have more information.
Could I realize I have more information without becoming emotional? Yes. Does it help me to realize that I need to ask that question when I *do* become emotional? Yes. And it also doesn't detract from my ability to make a rational argument.
There was a reading in a class I TAed for with a title like "Somatic Marker." I can't remember the writers first name, but his last was Damasio.
The basic argument was that emotional responses, like gut reactions are shortcuts to the logical process of decision making. One might have a quick, visceral, and emotional response to a moral dilemma, but when you unpack it logically your decision would be the same. Logic takes a while to get there, but emotion is faster.
Of course, we don't always need our decisions to be fast. Unpacking the logic behind them is useful for lots of things, especially discussion. But the idea that emotion and logic exist on the same spectrum, not mutually exclusive ones, was so liberating to me.
Weighing in on the whole "emotion v. rationality" debate:
It really is a false dichotomy. There's an episode of "Radio Lab" called "Choice":
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2008/11/14
In it, there's a story about a man who had a brain tumor that resulted in brain damage to the emotional centers of his brain. Problem was, he couldn't make even the simplest decision about what to eat, or which color pen to use, or anything. His life completely fell apart. Turns out you NEED emotions to make decisions.
Most times, it's best to control tears (or yelling, or punching things) if at all possible. But if tears happen, so be it, it's no big deal.
And if it's really important (like someone arguing against your basic rights/equality), then tears are more than justified.
I remember respecting the first George Bush when I heard that he cried making the decision to enter the first Iraq War. Bush II just seemed completely callous. On that evidence alone, Daddy Bush was by FAR the better president.
Your "evidence" being a subjective perception of a public officials outer persona is the rationale your using?
Clarification:
If I had to base a decision about who's better on ONLY that evidence (the story about crying), I would say that Bush 1 was a much better president than Bush 2.
I had a depressive illness where my emotions would constantly over-rule the reasoned decisions I would make. I'd make a decision to not take a certain course of action because I knew it would upset myself and someone else. Yet, the illness I suffered meant I couldn't have anything but a short-term emotional release. The intensity of the emotions that drove my decision making would build up and I'd find myself unable to take any other course of action other than the one I'd decided against. The results were exactly as my reasoned brain predicted.
Many people obsessions have an emotional need for that which they obsess over, it's what drives their behaviour. For those without illnesses the closest I'd imagine you can come to this is wanting to call a ex-boyfriend/girlfriend whose just broken up with you. Your emotions are telling you that you need to hear their voice, that you can talk to them and change their mind but logically you know that the results would be bad.
A certain amount of emotional detachment is necessary to be able to make an appropriate decision. Strong emotions have an ability to swamp the importance of other factors in your decision making process.
That's not to say that emotion has no place. Passion is a strong motivator. My point is that the decision you make still needs to be the right one after the emotional high of the instant has faded.
So, crying makes you a good president, but it's bad for a president to make a logical decision about war and peace, without a grandiose public display of emotion?
That makes absolutely no sense at all!
I'd prefer a president who could be cool, calm and rational when deciding to put young men and women in uniform in harms way to one who's up in the Situation Room crying and carrying on like a 5 year old!
I was just thinking about this!
I'm a crier. I'm also into feminist politics of science/knowledge (Foucauldian knowledge-power, Harding, etc). For me, crying is involuntary. I've always cried when upset, mad, etc. Especially when mad. I cry most when really pissed off. I was always made fun of growing up for this. I also was the "difficult woman" in many relationships who cried (which I guess means I'm manipulating my boyfriends, apparently).
I'm had a long fight both as an activist and as an individual to fight back against the "psycho bitch" archetype of women's emotions. I have had a long, hard road to learn that my feelings are valid.
The logic/emotion dichotomy is just one of many, many dichotomies our society clings to that disprivileges women. As a teacher and grad student, I think the classroom should make space for emotion (bell hooks [why am I citing things?]).
And personally, in relationships and in my career, I'll be damned if someone wants to discount me for crying. I don't see it as a bad thing to be upset or pissed off by injustice.
(Sorry if this post is scattered. I just had a lot of caffeine.)
I use to cry all the time when I argued with someone, and every time I'd argue with my mother. At one point she told me I was being manipulative. Except that, I was crying because she was yelling.
Anyway, I learned to control my tears and heard an interesting theory later on about women and tears. A lot of women cry when they are actually angry or upset because that's how women are allowed to show emotion. Women aren't able to scream or get loud or really be angry. I mean, they can be, but then they are a heinous bitch, where a man is just 'angry'. I don't think either crying or yelling ('raising your voice') are necessarily manipulative depending on the circumstances. If you're arguing about rape laws, it's probably not, but if your arguing about where to go for dinner or something, it may be manipulative, especially if its a pattern of behavior. I don't really like labeling an emotional response coercive or manipulative in all circumstances in an argument, especially if it is about an impassioned subject.
One thing that does tick me off is this assumption that all arguments have to be formal debate with sources and pure unemotional logic, etc. I mean, most of the time, your going to be talking to someone at work, or on the phone, or eating or at home or something. It's not like you went and did tons of research before you started talking about it, unless it happens to be something you're use to arguing about. And then it's not like your on the same level as the other person, if you have all these facts to back you up and they don't - and that can be manipulative in its own way.
I was just thinking about this!
I'm a crier. I'm also into feminist politics of science/knowledge (Foucauldian knowledge-power, Harding, etc). For me, crying is involuntary. I've always cried when upset, mad, etc. Especially when mad. I cry most when really pissed off. I was always made fun of growing up for this. I also was the "difficult woman" in many relationships who cried (which I guess means I'm manipulating my boyfriends, apparently).
I'm had a long fight both as an activist and as an individual to fight back against the "psycho bitch" archetype of women's emotions. I have had a long, hard road to learn that my feelings are valid.
The logic/emotion dichotomy is just one of many, many dichotomies our society clings to that disprivileges women. As a teacher and grad student, I think the classroom should make space for emotion (bell hooks [why am I citing things?]).
And personally, in relationships and in my career, I'll be damned if someone wants to discount me for crying. I don't see it as a bad thing to be upset or pissed off by injustice.
(Sorry if this post is scattered. I just had a lot of caffeine.)
I find the implication that one cannot be "logical" or "rational" while arguing a bit bothersome. I took the point of the original post to be that people can be logical while crying. In fact, saying otherwise is really what is illogical. Can a person use emotion (any emotion) to manipulate? Yes. Are purely emotional arguments sometimes wrong based on some rational facts? Of course. But the point is that a person can make a completely "logical" argument based in facts while "tearing up." Saying "I can't have a rational discussion about your rational arguments because you're crying" is a logical fallacy in itself.
Crying while making a logically valid argument is NOT the same as using an "appeal to emotion" in the argument.
I would "like" this about a billion times if I could.
"I can't have a rational discussion about your rational arguments because you're crying" is a logical fallacy in itself.
Except you've assumed that the person making that statement feels that way because they think you are incapable of being logical while you are crying. They might also make that statement because they feel your emotional state negatively affects their abiltiy to argue rationally. Certainly many people steer clear of arguments they feel are correct because they don't want to 'upset' somebody else.
I really don't feel that emotions should be weighed in rational debate. I also don't think that women have some special claim to emotionally clouded judgment. I'm pretty sure that capital punishment, which by many accounts is a waste of resources and not all that good at deterring crime, is a result of women and their wacky emotional arguments. I'd also argue that discriminatory laws against gay marriage are yet again emotionally inspired laws that don't have women as their cause. I'm sure that many us/them dichotomies that led to genocide in various parts of our history and conflicts weren't built on rational arguments.
If someone, man or woman, happens to cry or get angry at a debate I'm going to note their emotion and respect that they really care about the issue. I will respect them less if I think that it was for show and insincere, but it's not going to distract me from the rational argument that they made.
The problem as I see it is that emotional arguments influence people and cloud rational judgment. They allow people to argue for stupid things that don't make sense in a rational argument. George W. Bush played more on emotions than logic, and look how that played out. Emotional arguments do work, and that can lead to scary consequences.
I think that we go to far in respecting people's emotions, and letting them feel that it's okay for them to act according to emotions over rational thinking. Right now the feelings of some people are costing other people their human rights.
I think the ability to control crying and to control anger are different. Crying is the bodily reaction to an emotional state. Anger is an emotional state. I may not be able to stop myself from crying when I'm frustrated any more than I can stop my face from turning red when I'm angry or my hands from shaking when I'm frightened.
I can stop myself from yelling or punching the wall or curling up in a ball in the corner when I'm angry, frustrated or sad, respectively.
In any situation where you experience an emotion, you can control your expression of that emotion to an extent. Certainly you train your hands not to shake when you're learning to shoot or your nose not to twitch when you're bluffing in poker. But when we experience strong emotions, our bodies react in a way that can be much more difficult to control.
The feminist angle on the whole thing is that crying specifically is considered feminine, and is unacceptable in most venues (corporate, academic, legal and often in the media). Men are raised to believe tears show weakness and often have trained their bodies not to tear up to express emotion. Women are held to a different standard, and socially programmed to display different reactions to emotion. So women are more likely to respond to frustration with tears and are then seen as weak or inconsistent.
A quick temper in a man (yelling, cussing, and slamming fists on tables) is viewed positively. Men exhibiting these behaviors are seen as passionate and strong-willed. If women react with anger in the same way they are seen as unreasonable. Can't win.
And that is exactly how it is at my office. My male coworkers cuss and yell and bang fists and are complimented and rewarded. I've been told to calm down. When I am upset or disagree with someone, I've been told "don't cry!" although I have never cried at my office. My only option in a debate is to deliver a dispassionate, articulate argument backed by solid evidence.
Boys learn at a very early age that crying is a sign of weakness/effeminacy/homosexuality - and crying will get you punished (and maybe even beaten up) - so we learn early on to suppress the tears no matter what.
It's OK to get angry, and even violent, but tears are forbidden for males, under any circumstances.
And that training is powerful - I didn't even cry when I broke my leg! Nor did I cry when I found out my father had died.
Girls, on the other hand, learn at a very early age that tears are perfectly acceptable and will get them sympathy. In fact, for girls and women, tears are socially acceptable but open displays of anger are absolutely not acceptable.
So, contrary to what some posters have said here, tears are not "involuntary" - just a conditioned response to a lifetime of gender training.
Don't suppose that men are so different from women in the emotion department. Both men and women sometimes feel like crying, both men and women sometimes feel like yelling and throwing things. The difference is how people are taught to respond to those impulses. It's my opinion that both should try to keep emotions out of arguments because it tends to cloud reason.
"Both men and women sometimes feel like crying, both men and women sometimes feel like yelling and throwing things."
Correct - but men learned early in life that we are not ever allowed to cry, but we are allowed to yell and throw stuff, while women learned early in life that they are allowed to cry but they are not allowed to yell or throw stuff.
In other words, it's social conditioning at work.
I see a lot of contradiction in this thread and I for one can't chime in on whether or not reconciling the heart with the head is a good way to look at things or not.
But I will say that for me it's difficult to cry. I usually have to get severely worked up to even manage to tear up and I admit that as a man I feel embarrassed by shedding tears in public. Someone sang an absolutely beautiful vocal ministry at meeting the other week and I teared up, though I could have absolutely bawled if I hadn't controlled myself.
Perhaps we do tend to come down more strongly on one side more than another, but being socialized as a man I was told to emphasize my rational side at the expense of my emotional side and as much as I strongly dislike conventional masculinity, I can't help but be influenced by it. But I've made a lot of progress pushing much of it aside.
Not only are thinking and feeling basically the same thing with different names, but there are perceptibly "emotional" and "rational" justifications for virtually any position on any issue known - and all such justifications have at least some characteristics or assumptions from both categories. Just as it's important to acknowledge personal biases in any argument, it's also important to acknowledge "emotional" forms of personal investment. That doesn't mean a particular category of arguments is inherently more persuasive.
Is it sexist to say that "rational" arguments are better? I would say no, not inherently - not if one has a good reason for making the somewhat arbitrary distinction in the first place. It would be problematic, however, to say that any display of emotion invalidates the rest of the argument.
"Last night at our panel, Roxie bravely talked about a moment when she got into a big argument with her uncle about whether a woman had the capacity to be president. He was arguing that women were too emotional. She was arguing, of course, that emotion could be a fundamental tool in leadership positions. In the midst of this whole thing, of course... Read More, Roxie felt like she was going to burst into tears (she held it in until later)."
I don't know what's funnier...the idea that a president is a sea mark of rationality or whether or not emotion could be a fundamental tool in leadership positions.
if we lived in a monarchy I might be able to buy the idea that the king was an individual who favored reason over emotion and reaction as the kingdom is his property and he would most likely act in a manner to protect his property and further his prosperity. but a president is the executive officer of a democracy. in order to gain the position and maintain it through another term, he has to be the embodiment of a fickle and reactionary mob. as mobs aren't known for thinking objectively, be they tea parties, lynch mobs, g20 protests, obama rallies, etc., I would hardly expect the result of the mob's popularity contest to be someone who acts in a manner Roxie's uncle feels he acts.
"In this still male-dominated realm of intellectual debate (just look at the op-ed pages of any major newspaper), the standard is still clear: emotions, and most certainly crying, don't have a place."
if anyone thinks op-ed pages in newspapers are a prime example of the exercise of objective thinking then I don't know what to say.
anyhow...
being able to separate our emotions from our reason is what makes us different from every other animal we've come across. it's the essence of our humanity. saying that emotion is a valid tool for leadership (or any position that could possibly yield something productive) is a serious step backwards. things such as fear, anger, sadness, envy, envy, envy, or bitterness should not be the basis of decisions. it's our ability to determine causal links and organize our priorities above such pettiness that has delivered us from caves where we jumped at our own shadows to where we are today (though the majority of people are still reactionary troglodytes)
it is refreshing to see this admission, though. emotive arguments are always a mixed blessing. an individual who bases his decisions and beliefs upon logic will have absolutely no problem making the other person look like an idiot (and possibly cry) just by using the socratic method. but an individual utilizing reason will never get through to a person who builds their opinions upon their feelings. the basis of an emotive argument is a force that is insurmountable. there's no point in discussing things with people such as that (other than amusement) as you might as well try reasoning with a spoiled child who has made up its mind it wants a pony.
Oh, nobody's saying newspaper op-eds are a prime example of objective thinking, just that they're a prime example of people CLAIMING they're thinking objectively because that's what they figure will lend weight to their purely emotionally-fueled ranting.
You have a very contemptuous view of democracy and of your fellow Americans. I find that disturbing.
I happen to believe in what you call "mob rule" and I believe that the best way to run a society is for the so called "mob" to have as much input as possible in how society is run.
I'm sure you hold such beliefs.
as for me...I do not think that 50.1% of the population should be able to dictate the lives of the other 49.9%.
e.g. banning gay marriage due to a popularity contest.
Indeed it has been said that a role of government is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
"I may be having an argument with someone who claims to have no emotional attachment to our subject matter. Why should I have to met them on their terms and pretend that I too have no emotional attachment to the subject matter?"
On the contrary, use it! A good response is, let's say you're arguing about tidiness, "Well if your view on whether you pick up your socks or not matters very little to you, but my desire for you to pick up your socks matters massively to me and affects my mood and the way I treat you, and me being in a good mood affects your life, LOGICALLY you must pick up the socks. Even if you think my sock obsession is totally stupid and irrational, you have effectively acknowledged the FACTS are these:
1. I have an obsession with a sock-free floor. It exists.
2. My feelings have the power to affect your life negatively or positively.
3. The combined sum of "us", which is a unit of which you are voluntarily part (by virtue of you not having moved out rather than have the sock debate) cares more about the socks NOT being there than about whether you get to not pick them up.
4. The effort you have to expend in picking them up is small and the benefit you derive from my good mood is large.
5. As you claim you have no emotional investment here and are guided only by facts like the above, clearly you are not going to feel hen-pecked because you did a logical act in picking up the socks, nor let your pride get in the way of the logical choice.
The purely utilitarian outcome, the greatest happiness for the greatest number for the lowest effort, requires that you pick up the socks. If you refuse to pick up the socks you are either putting your pride before what is practical, or making an erroneous reward/effort evaluation, both of which are illogical."
Logic means you deal with the situation you have not the one you wish you had, and that means factoring in others' emotions whether or not you have any yourself.
This is awesome! :o)
LOL LOL LOL!
Then said person questions the value of your time if your willing to come up with that argument to try to convince him instead off picking up or ignoring the sock.
Maybe the person also derives some pleasure at seeing their partner infuriated and eggs them on to see what happens. :D
On the contrary, logic would dictate that the person who gets upset about socks being on the floor pick up the socks - because it just isn't that important to the person who doesn't care if their socks are on the floor.
"On the contrary, use it! A good response is, let's say you're arguing about tidiness, "Well if your view on whether you pick up your socks or not matters very little to you, but my desire for you to pick up your socks matters massively to me and affects my mood and the way I treat you, and me being in a good mood affects your life, LOGICALLY you must pick up the socks. Even if you think my sock obsession is totally stupid and irrational, you have effectively acknowledged the FACTS are these:
1. I have an obsession with a sock-free floor. It exists.
2. My feelings have the power to affect your life negatively or positively.
3. The combined sum of "us", which is a unit of which you are voluntarily part (by virtue of you not having moved out rather than have the sock debate) cares more about the socks NOT being there than about whether you get to not pick them up.
4. The effort you have to expend in picking them up is small and the benefit you derive from my good mood is large.
5. As you claim you have no emotional investment here and are guided only by facts like the above, clearly you are not going to feel hen-pecked because you did a logical act in picking up the socks, nor let your pride get in the way of the logical choice.
The purely utilitarian outcome, the greatest happiness for the greatest number for the lowest effort, requires that you pick up the socks. If you refuse to pick up the socks you are either putting your pride before what is practical, or making an erroneous reward/effort evaluation, both of which are illogical."
Logic means you deal with the situation you have not the one you wish you had, and that means factoring in others' emotions whether or not you have any yourself."
you do realize that LOGICALLY you just justified anything.
let's take female circumcision, for instance.
//A good response is, let's say you're arguing about female circumcision, "Well if your view on female circumcision matters very little to you, but my desire for you to be circumcised matters massively to me and affects my mood and the way I treat you, and me being in a good mood affects your life, LOGICALLY you must be circumcised. Even if you think female circumcision is totally stupid and irrational, you have effectively acknowledged the FACTS are these:
1. I have an obsession with circumcised vaginas. It exists.
2. My feelings have the power to affect your life negatively or positively.
3. The combined sum of "us", which is a unit of which you are voluntarily part (by virtue of you not leaving Africa rather than being circumcised) cares more about the vagina NOT being uncircumcised than about whether you get to not be circumcised.
4. The effort you have to expend in being circumcised is small and the benefit you derive from my good mood is large.
5. As you claim you have no emotional investment here and are guided only by facts like the above, clearly you are not going to feel hen-pecked because you did a logical act in being circumcised, nor let your pride get in the way of the logical choice.
The purely utilitarian outcome, the greatest happiness for the greatest number for the lowest effort, requires that you be circumcised. If you refuse to be circumcised you are either putting your pride before what is practical, or making an erroneous reward/effort evaluation, both of which are illogical."//
utilitarianism is an utter failure. I do not think most people wholly appreciate the system they are so quick to invoke. if one were to truly buy into utilitarianism and one were able to accurately measure the emotional gains or losses that result because of certain actions, then what would a utilitarian say to a situation where a rapist gained more joy than a victim gained in sorrow? well, according to their morally repulsive beliefs, then the action would be justifiable. what is even more disgusting is that under a utilitarian system such a comparison would even be made. the response to this is generally 'oh that would never happen' but the fact is we have no way of gauging emotional gains and loses. as such, all utilitarian statements are baseless. I'm always surprised at feminists who take such a shining to utilitarianism because they think they can take and take and take from such a system but are so blind to implications of such a philosophy. this is, of course, an extreme example, but extreme examples are often warranted for individuals to see such faults.
and no, utilitarianism is not logic. it is the exact opposite. it does not use an a priori approach. it pretends that we can measure such emotional gains and loses (sorry, but felicific calculus is a ridiculous idea) - which we can't. preference utilitarianism (which is what I'm assuming this individual believes in) should be utterly rejected by anyone who respects the rights of not only women but all humans, but it is my experience that people who spout such things usually base their belief in utilitarianism emotionally and do not think such things through objectively.
on a slightly different subject...
we are all rational actors, even if our actions are driven by petty emotions like envy or anger. however, when I speak of rationality, I am referring to putting such feelings aside and focusing on causal relationships to ensure actions will truly result in the desired goal...not in a superficial attempt to alleviate a flighty emotion.
Ok, so, I have no respect for "pure utilitarianism," and feel no need to defend the pure doctrine. But your ostensible critique of the above poster is totally bogus. It begins on line one:
""Well if your view on female circumcision matters very little to you, but my desire for you to be circumcised matters massively to me and affects my mood and the way I treat you, and me being in a good mood affects your life, LOGICALLY you must be circumcised."
Everything you just said hinges on the premise that the woman's view on female circumcision is one of indifference. And we know that is not the case. End of story.
"Everything you just said hinges on the premise that the woman's view on female circumcision is one of indifference. And we know that is not the case. End of story."
just like the socks.
how are we, using any utilitarian system, supposed to measure another individual's indifference?
THIS
In my opinion, decisions should be the result of analysis, of weighing the pros and cons, of evaluating risks and gains, and cutting losses.
Whenever a conversation or debate gets emotional, it just becomes so much more difficult to communicate effectively.
Not everyone has an easy time managing their emotions. Do you know how fucking difficult it is not to cry once you've started? Part of my Asperger's -- the most visible part, probably -- involves it being really, really difficult to control one's emotions. When I'm upset, I cry, and many things upset me. I've worked on it for over twenty years and I still can't quite do it. I'm at the point where I can at least do it silently, but one look at me and it's obvious how much work it's taking.
This is actually one of the key themes of the original Star Trek series. The conflict between Spock's logic and Kirk's emotional drive is explored over and over again. In the fight scene in 'The Cage' for instance they are given the choice between fighting to the death or both being killed. Spock decided the only logical decision was to fight but Kirk rejected the choice - an emotional decision to be sure, but one that embodies a higher morality.
The quandries in Star Trek weren't always resolved in favour of emotion though. Often a situation was encontered where the crew's emotions were manipulated and it was only through holding on to the knowledge that it was a manipulation by Spock (or sometimes Kirk) were they able to find their way out of their quandry.
The message the writers were trying to send was that cold logic isn't always sufficient for a good decision, but neither was pure emotion. Instead the two needed to be used in symbiosis; you need logic to understand where your emotions are coming from, but you need emotion to give you the courage of your convictions.
This is a great post and I completely agree.
Another paralell is the whole `the ends justify the means` idea. If you could kill 1000 people in order to save 1 million, would you? Most would not, but logically speaking it may actually be the best decision even if our emotions tell us otherwise. I mean overall less people are dying this way, yet who wants to be the one to kill those people?
semantics!
Women can certainly present their arguments in a nonemotional manner, and men with an emotional one. But I think this piece points out how emotion can be a valid part of argument. Emotion doesn't rule out rationality. I don't believe it is wrong to partially base decisions on emotions. People have feelings and it is unrealistic to expect us to not have them and never have them influence our decisions or arguments. A balance between emotion and logic is probably the best.