Don't Be That Guy.

[synecdochic]

I keep thinking about the discussions that have come up in the comments to my post about sex-positivism and performative sexuality and the concept of bystander consent, and I keep thinking about all the subtle little cues and clues I personally use to separate Okay from Skeevy when people approach me. Talking in the comments there made me realize

Comments

[nineveh_uk]

Not because the issues aren't important, but because that isn't the right place or time for that particular discussion. The fact that one group of people has a right to their safe space where their problems can be discussed does not negate the right of another group to have their own safe space where their different problems can be discussed. But the way to make a safe space for your group is not by barging in on someone else's safe space.

Yes, yes, and thrice yes.

It’s as if someone were talking about the appalling statistics on maternal morbidity in sub-Saharan African, and I piped up “But far too many women still die in childbirth in the West, let’s focus on that”. I would be derailing the purpose of the original discussion. My first point would still be correct, and preventable maternal deaths in the West are an important issue for discussion and action, and it is very, very important we focus on them - at the right time. That time is not in the middle of a conversation about something else, and “my cousin nearly died in hospital in Llandudno [compicated medical technology]” is ultimately not relevant to the conversation about “this sixteen year old has a fistula as a result of prolonged labour with her 4th child for want of basic midwifery” or “this woman died because there was no Dettol”.

[alasandalack]

It’s as if someone were talking about the appalling statistics on maternal morbidity in sub-Saharan African, and I piped up “But far too many women still die in childbirth in the West, let’s focus on that”. I would be derailing the purpose of the original discussion.

but what if the discussion were about the apparent Western attitude toward, and dismissal of, the importance of maternal morbidity in sub-Saharan Africa? that brings Westerners into the mix, and i don't believe you would be out of line in pointing out how maternal morbidity in the West might affect a Westerner's attitude toward the African experience.

that was a pretty damn confusing paragraph, but i can't think of a way to simplify it. sorry :-/

[hilarytamar]

I'm not nineveh_uk, obviously, but one difference that struck me between

and I piped up “But far too many women still die in childbirth in the West, let’s focus on that”
and
and i don't believe you would be out of line in pointing out how maternal morbidity in the West might affect a Westerner's attitude toward the African experience.

is the difference between focus on and mention. I say that because in reading each of these two comments I found myself nodding & saying, 'sure, OK', and then having to re-read, because I didn't see where you were disagreeing with each other; it wasn't until I paid closer attention to the word choice that I began to see where that disagreement might come in.

In my experience, and I emphasize in my experience, if I'm in a discussion of privilege category C & I happen to have privilege category C, I find it really hard to stay on the side of "mention", and I have an even harder time recognizing that what I think of as "mention" is being heard as "focus" by the people in the group who do not have privilege C. I'm so used to having my privilege C that I have a hard time recognizing that it's not always relevant, or not really relevant to what's being said, or--even more subtly, to me--that even if it's relevant, it's not something I need to mention. In this specific example, as a Westerner I might well think to make the point you talk about--but that's a point the non-Westerners are equally capable of recognizing, and my mentioning it might easily sound like I think they wouldn't recognize it if I didn't tell them, and, well, here we move into That Guy-dom: being patronizing and Explaining. (And even if it isn't Explaining, I try to err on the side of caution and avoid doing things that might be taken as Explaining.) I think that's the dynamic that some people here are trying to get at: that it's quite hard to see the line between 'mention' and 'focus', especially if you (I) are used to discussions already focusing on the things you (I) find it relevant to mention.

[nineveh_uk]

Of course, it always depends ;-) And it depends on the initial conversation, its purpose, and its participants, and the purpose contribution of the new character. As hilarytamar put it, much is down to method and focus.

If apparent Western attitude toward, and dismissal of, the importance of maternal morbidity in sub-Saharan Africa were the subject under discussion then the Western experience might be relevant. But it would rather depend on how I made the point and how it was intended to advance the initial discussion. The risk of derailing it would still be high. Especially if the original conversation were being had by a group of midwives, sub-Saharan women, and European aid workers, and the person interjecting were a British obstetrician. As in:

“Maternal morbidity is so low in north-western Europe that it isn’t something in our conscious - an increased awareness and understanding of the risks of childbirth in all circumstances and what can reduce them might help society to realise the extent of the problem in sub-Saharan Africa” might make a positive contribution to the discussion - as long as the conversation continued to be about the impact of this upon sub-Saharan Africa, not a complete switch to “so therefore let’s talk about how we raise awareness of maternal morbidity in Leicestershire, which is where I’m a doctor”.

If the initial subject, however, was about how Westerners increase the rates of maternal morbidity in Africa through aid policies that e.g. deny funding to organisations that promote contraception, then “There’s a problem in the USA with women who can’t get adequate maternity care as a result of the same cultural mindset, and we need to tackle this on both fronts because we can’t win on one” could be relevant if the discussion were taking place around a spine of “how maternal morbidity in sub-Saharan Africa relates to international, particularly USA, aid policies stemming from the US governing party’s attitudes”. However it would be a conversational wrecking motion if the discussion were about “how, in the absence of international help (related to national overseas government aid policies) other agencies were training local women in low-tech approaches to provide basic help”, for which “You know, too many women in low socio-economic groups die in childbirth in Alabama” is sad, but irrelevant in this case.

And if the original conversation were a howl of rage and pain that, "One in sixteen women in sub-Saharan Africa die from pregnancy-related causes" then interjecting "Don't forget, one in 7500 women in the UK die from pregnancy-related causes, and this conversation should be 50% about that" is simply an insult. I am absolutely not saying that this is the equivalent of what all men bringing up male rape in a conversation are doing (particularly those who are themselves survivors), but it is an undoubted phenomenon, and one that a lot of women will have witnessed.

[apatheia_jane]

[nineveh_uk]

I agree - as long as the discussion is about “That Guy”, or about an experience in which all people involved can share.

if however, it's a conversation where someone has pointed out a problem commonly experienced by one group, then other people who have experienced the same problem absolutely get to share their experiences.

Again, true. Assuming that they don't do so intending to derail the discussion, which a lot of men saying "men are raped/subject to domestic violence, too" are often intending to do. In other words, "men are raped too" is used by Those Guys as a tool to silence women's experiences - my reading is that this is what