Talk Me Down, by Martha Thomases – Brilliant Disguise | @MDWorld
July 19, 2014 Martha Thomases 1 Comment
I had hoped to write something frivolous this week, because being enraged all the time is exhausting. It’s also more than a little egotistical, as if my anger, justified or not, is going to change anything.
Instead, I thought, I would attempt to amuse you, Constant Reader, with stories about the sparrows that inhabit my neighborhood. I think there is some kind of Game of Thrones/All My Children thing happening with the way they relate to each other and to other birds, particularly pigeons.
That will have to wait. Because I saw this and now I’m pissed again.
A Republican woman, Representative Renee Ellmers of North Carolina, speaking to a Republican crowd about how to reach women voters, said something with which I disagree. Now, that in itself is not unusual. I’m not a conservative Republican, but aside from that, I don’t always agree with myself from one day to the next. My views on pornography, farm subsidies, immigration reform and other issues have changed a lot since I was younger,. I would like to think shows that I consider other points of view and experiences other than my own, but it may, in fact, just mean I am easily amused.
However, this is more than just a different perspective. This is insulting. The woman in question said (and I quote), “We need our male colleagues to understand that if you can bring it down to a woman’s level and what everything that she is balancing in her life — that’s the way to go.”
She goes on to say that men speak at a higher level than women can understand. She says this in such a matter-of-fact manner that I can only assume that she, and her audience, accept this point of view as fact.
Not for one minute do I believe that all women think the same way, not any more than all men think the same way. I not only think there are smart women and stupid women (and everything in between), but different kinds of smart and stupid. I think men are the same, in that they are each different.
However, I think that in Western culture, women are frequently socialized to consider issues in different ways than men. You don’t see a lot of men talking business on the phone with babies on their hips, for example. I’m not saying it never happens. I’m just saying it’s something women are more likely to do.
Therefore, Ellmers is wrong when she says, “Men do tend to talk about things on a much higher level. Many of my male colleagues, when they go to the House floor, you know, they’ve got some pie chart or graph behind them and they’re talking about trillions of dollars and how, you know, the debt is awful and, you know, we all agree with that.”
First of all, pie charts and grafts were created to make complex figures easier to understand. Using them is not evidence of a higher level of discourse.
Secondly, we don’t agree that debt is “awful.” Most middle class families have debt. If they are well-off enough to have enough money to pay their bills, they may still have mortgages on their homes. They made an informed decision to borrow money for a variety of reasons, including:
• They wanted to own a house.
• They wanted to take advantage of the tax benefits of having a mortgage.
• Their money was making more money from investments than they would pay in mortgage interest.
• They believed their investment in real estate would increase in value while the money they paid for their mortgages would be worth less in constant dollars because of inflation.
There are other reasons, but these are the most obvious to me. But then, I’m just a simple woman.
Why does Ms. Ellmers think women aren’t up sophisticated enough to understand issues at the high level men do? Perhaps she gets this idea from the so-called “liberal” media. According to a recent study, almost all of the “experts” who share opinion on cable news networks are white men.
Yes, especially on Rachel Maddow’s show. I love you, Rachel, but pick up your game.
I don’t think Republican women are necessarily evil, or that Representative Ellmers is necessarily evil. I think she has bought in to a particular strain of conservative thought that considers women to be less than men. She’s trying to find a way to persuade us to agree with her.
There may be a market of self-loathing women who think that, like her, they aren’t very smart. I don’t think they can get insulted if we agree with them, too.
Martha Thomases, Media Goddess, needs to stop thinking about pie.
Howard Cruse
July 19, 2014 - 7:06 am
It seems like a well-written column, Martha, but I’m not sure I understand all of it. Would you mind bringing it down to my level?
Mike Gold
July 19, 2014 - 11:00 am
Martha, it’s possible you may have misunderstood Ms. Ellmers’ comment. When she said “men speak at a higher level than women can understand,” perhaps she was thinking of Republican women. Hard to imagine she knows any non-Republican women. Or, perhaps, she doesn’t consider them to be “real” women.
She’s absolutely correct in her thinking, as you surmised, that there’s a market of self-loathing women who think that they aren’t very smart. Ever watch teevee commercials? Perhaps her mistake is not that Republican women aren’t very smart, but that Republican men are a lot dumber than she thought.
There’s a reason Republican men are the way they are: in college, they couldn’t get laid by left-wing women. In their resentment, they turned to the right where they wouldn’t be embarrassed by women whose sex life is roughly the same as Groot’s.
In two weeks, that’ll be a meme.
Neil C.
July 19, 2014 - 11:25 am
Now, now Martha, that was very cute. 🙂 (just kidding!)
Liz Haase
July 20, 2014 - 10:51 am
Sigh….I am constantly amazed by conservative women who believe they are less than men and the men who believe that, too.
Ed Sedarbaum
July 20, 2014 - 1:32 pm
I’ve seen that clip several times on TV and online, but only once have I seen the fuller clip. In that it was clear to me that she meant to counsel what I have often said myself: politicians need to talk about issues in a way that makes it clear how the issue relates to voters’ personal lives. She said it clumsily, stupidly and insultingly, and in a way that reflects her own likely internalized misogyny. By “on a higher level” I think she meant to be saying her colleagues tend toward statistics and abstractions when they should be talking about how policy affects lived lives. By “down” she probably meant “bring it down to the level of human experience. I can only think that all the media outlets withhold the fuller clip so as to provoke controversy.
R. Maheras
July 24, 2014 - 1:48 pm
Beyond the clumsy, ham-fisted nature of Rep. Ellmers statement, I disagree with her basic theory that any particular subject needs to be “dumbed-down” for Jane (or Joe) Sixpack to understand.
The audience isn’t the problem here. It’s the communicator.
Good speakers or writers know their audience. If their audience is a SWAT Convention crowd consisting solely of SWAT team members and law-enforcement officials, it’s probably OK (lazy, but OK) to use weapons or military-related lingo and/or acronyms. However, if one is addressing a SWAT convention crowd that consists of SWAT members, law-enforcement officials, their spouses, and the general public, then the communication MUST be adjusted accordingly.
I’ve spent more than 30 years working for the Department of Defense (DOD), and about two-thirds of that has been in the field of personal communications. So any time I write something, in the back of my mind there’s a little voice reminding me to keep it clear and to the point.
I went to a DOD training class not too long ago, and the two-day lecture was filled with more acronyms than I’d recalled ever seeing in any 10 previous training classes. So, smartass that I am, I left the feedback sheet blank except for a simple cartoon.
On the left side of the cartoon, I showed the instructor. And in his word balloon, I randomly listed about a dozen or so actual acronyms from the class. On the right side of the cartoon, I drew some students, one of whom had a thought balloon leading away from his head. In it was this sole acronym:
“WTF??!!”