September 26, 2009

a letter to the library, written in the library

Dear San Diego Public Library Head Honcho,

I'm writing today with a concern about the evolving library culture in San Diego. I remember a time, not so long ago (really not that long ago; I'm not even 30), when libraries were quiet places where we spoke in hushed tones and were careful not to disturb patrons who were there to read or study. I've noticed a change over the past few years, though. People now speak at conversational volume. What's worse is that it's primarily library staff members doing this! These are the people who are supposed to shush us, with scowls on their faces, when we speak above a whisper; now the roles are reversed, and I'm scowling at them as they're breaking my concentration while I'm trying to study.

I can't speak to all of the branches in San Diego, but I can attest that this is common at the Rancho Bernardo and Carmel Mountain Ranch locations. I always hoped I wouldn't turn into that guy who writes letters to complain about the times a-changin' until at least my 60th birthday (coinciding with my debut as the old man who yells at kids to stay off his lawn, by the way), but I figured it'd be better to address this earlier rather than later, as I'll hopefully be done with grad school by then and it won't be as big a deal for me.

Thanks so much for your time, and for providing an outstanding (albeit sometimes noisy) public library system. Keep up the great work.

-Caleb Ruggiero

September 11, 2009

feminism, logic, and (ir)rational debate

The following is an exchange I had with a colleague via the comments section of a link she posted on Facebook. I'm not disclosing her name or how I know her, but for context I will say that she's an adult female, several years my junior, and despite the impression this exchange may give, I really do like her and consider her a friend.

The initial link she posted was an essay entitled "Feminist arguments: A good argument against feminism". Having a basic understanding of logic and rhetoric, it didn't take me long to recognize that this piece is so wrought with fallacy and condescension that it's not even worth finishing.

Once I got about half way through, I quit reading and wrote a quick response. Little did I realize that this would lead to me spending my afternoon debating instead of getting the alignment on my Saturn done. Here's the exchange:

Me:
I read the first few paragraphs, and couldn't bring myself to continue.

Let's just take a moment to clear up what feminism is, and what it is not.

Feminism is the theory that women should have the same rights, responsibilities, and opportunities as men.

Feminism is NOT about women and men being exactly the same. It's not about women being better than men. It's not about burning bras, male-bashing, lesbianism, or anything else this author would like to convince us it is.

It's just the theory that men and women should be afforded equal opportunity and equal rights. Nothing more, and nothing less.


Me:
And yes, there do exist feminist sub-theories which advocate misandry (reverse sexism), transgenderism (eg., not shaving, acting "butch"), and various other concepts which most people would consider "fringe".

But keep in mind there are some conservatives who advocate misogyny, the suspension of the Bill of Rights, and racial bigotry. But these views are not representative of what it means to be a conservative.

And there are some liberals who advocate voting rights for noncitizens, the abolition of capitalism, and eliminating our police and military forces. But these are certainly not reflective of classic liberalism.

And also, there are some Christian groups which promote anitsemitism, homophobia, violence, and greed. And you and I know these have nothing to do with Jesus Christ.

Just as it would be dishonest and reckless to generalize any of these fringe sub-theories as representative of their metatheories, we must take care not to do the same with feminist theory.


Her:
whatever the theory originally was, or what feminism is "defined as", is irrelevant. I did not post this article to say that women are inferior to men, but rather, that women should stop ACTING like the victim. Yes, men and women are of equal value, but it cannot be argued that they are the same. They're not, and that's a good thing...something to be celebrated, not fought. For the most part, feminism has become an agent for women to complain and act picked on. Interestingly enough, it is not uncommon for feminists to have had crappy, loser fathers. Hmmmmm..... a little pent up anger?

Maybe you should read the whole article?


Her:
More support for my belief: http://www.drlaura.com/letters/index.html?mode=view&tile=1&id=18102
[Ironically, I was thinking of using this very letter as an example of the kind of illogical and senseless argument one should avoid... obviously that would not have gone over very well in this discussion.]

Me:
Ironically, in describing your opposition to feminism, you are actually describing feminism itself. And what you are describing as feminism is, as I pointed out in my last comment, not actually what feminism is about. But of course, that's "irrelevant" isn't it?

Me:
Also, do you have any statistics to back up your suggestion that feminism is related to having bad fathers?

Her:
Do I have any statistics? No. Could I find some? Probably. I can list a number of women that I KNOW who are pissed off, liberal-minded, traditional-hating, men-bashing, feminists whose fathers were crap.

I'm sure that you will have some argument for anything I say regarding this issue. I will go on believing that modern feminism is ridiculous, that it is a huge contributor to the breakdown of the American family, and that it's has become a way for women to feel sorry for themselves. I believe these things about feminism TODAY; regardless of its ORIGINAL intent, there is NO denying what it has become.

Shall we agree to disagree?


Her:
And did I mention that these women tend to be miserable?

Me:
And I can list a number of conservatives I know who are anti-women, anti-environment, anti-minority, and anti-intellectual, but I'd be a fool to use that as evidence that those traits are reflective of mainstream conservativism.

You're free to stereotype and pigeonhole if that's what you really want to do. But I'd like to suggest you instead take the time to really understand the subject matter you're talking about instead of closing your ears and your mind to logical arguments that don't necessarily support what you've already chosen to believe is true. You just might find the world is much more complex and beautiful and textured than you'd realized.

Her:
dito

Her:
wait...have you not already chosen that what you believe is true as well? are you not closing your ears and your mind to MY logical arguments? We are both guilty of the same thing; we both want to be right. Maybe there is more than one way to look at something? Like I said, we can agree to disagree.

Her:
And I have taken the time to understand the subject matter, extensively. Just because I have come to a different conclusion than you on it, doesn't mean I'm wrong or close-minded.

Her:
It's also interesting that you made incredibly strong statements on an article that you didn't even read. Hmm.

Me:
The statements I made aren't about the article; they're about the logical position you're arguing.

Her:
I think we are both arguing about different aspects of this issue. You certainly have made some great points, and I really respect them.

Me:
I think so too. You're arguing against a particular brand of feminism which denies inherent differences between men and women, and tends to favor reverse sexism. I'm arguing that this brand of feminism is a fringe view and doesn't reflect the mainstream position that men and women ARE different, but should be afforded equal opportunity and equal treatment under the law.

We both know that there are innate sex differences, and that believing otherwise is inconsistent with mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary. There's no disagreement there.


Me:
I guess the real debate here is how to define feminism. I'll take your word for it that you've encountered lots of wackos who call themselves feminists, and who have been the proverbial bad apples that spoil the whole bushel. I've encountered plenty of them myself. But that's only one view out of many which all fall under the "feminism" umbrella.

You've indicated that you agree with popular feminist theory, yet won't call yourself a feminist because you associate the term with the radical groups. I used to hesitate to use the term too, for the same reason. But we'd do well to not throw the baby out with the bathwater, rejecting true feminism along with its radical subcultures.

I guess the take-home lesson, if I had one, would be this: Don't let crazy minorities redefine definitions. It's human nature and we all do it, but it's very dangerous. We need only look at any political debate, religious strife, or racial conflict as evidence of this.


Me:
Last comment: I really enjoyed this debate, and I hope you did too :-)

Her:
Good conclusion. I actually did enjoy it too. Truce?

Me:
Sure. Let's join forces and gang up on someone else now. Any suggestions?


Am I not getting something here? Is the logic really that difficult to understand? Or am I really doing that bad a job of explaining that just because A=B, B doesn't necessarily equal A? Were my examples insufficient? Or does this go deeper than that? Am I the one being illogical? I sure hope not.

Thoughts?


UPDATE: After I posted this initially, the debate continued on for a while longer, leaving this account only about 50% complete. I've gone back and included the conversation in its entirety, which negates my original conclusion, as we did end up coming to a consensus. As usual, it ended up being more about semantics than actual content. Psh. Just once I'd like to come out of a debate having vanquished an opponent instead of realizing that we agree with each other and are just too tenacious to realize it. Oh well.