Ta-Nehisi Coates=All That

You know why Ta-Nehisi Coates is such a mensch? Read the comments here, and then read this. Bascially, people were making comments on how attractive Joan Mullholland was (a (white) civil rights campaigner who took part in sit-ins at segregated lunch counters.) Which, yeah, she's very attractive. Stalwart commenter Sara_l_r objected, strongly, and got some push back. Here's Coates in his apology.

At one point, in lieu of noting that discussions of Mulholland's appearance reduced her efforts, the following comment was made by Sara_l_r to me:

If you don't see those as reductionist, I'd ask you to remember that you're a man and are not necessarily in a position to understand why those comments feel reductionist.

I took exception to that. It's not really something I would write, say, if I were talking to someone white. I think it's the sort of comment that shrinks the conversation, as opposed to expanding it. Beyond that, I took exception to much of the tone of Sara's comments on the matter. With that said, the fact of the matter is that, ultimately, the tone is irrelevant. The only real question is the following--Is it in any way true?

I have no problem trying to answer this question across the internet. But more clarifying, I think, is to supplement that debate by talking to actual people who know more about the subject than you. As it happens, for the past decade, I've had the luxury of living with just such a person. After some talk, it quickly became clear that I was not on the right side of that debate. Complaining about "tone" would not fix that. Even now, I don't fully understand what was wrong with the strain of comments. But I'm certain that if I can't convince said expert, then I'm probably out of my depth. I think this is the truth in Sara's point. I don't know that I would see it differently if I were a woman. I think I might see it differently if I knew more, though.

From what I do know, I think I can say this. 1.) To be constantly evaluated on your physical appearance must represent a serious weight. 2.) It can't be fun to come on to one of your favorite blogs (if I may be so bold) and be reminded that such evaluating is, indeed, a constant. It really doesn't matter how intellectual and artful the execution. To the extent that I encouraged, was blind to, or contributed to that dynamic, I was wrong.

What must be said here, without being reduced to academic jargon, is that privilege encourages blindness, that we see, first, that which we need to see. I think I've done four of five mea culpas since I started blogging at The Atlantic. I also think that fully half of them came down to something I said about gender. I think that's significant. The scourge of talking too much and listening too little is always about. One needs to constantly be on guard. I have said as much before. Here's hoping I get it right this time.

Male blogger gets called out in a way he doesn't like, blogger goes and talks to a woman whose judgment he trusts, and he admits he made a mistake. On the internet. Yeah, that internet. How great is that? I submit that it is awesome.

Comments

[zunguzungu]

Disagree strongly. Coates acted like a doofus on that thread, and it speaks well of him that he was (eventually) willing to listen to his partner when she called out for being a doofus, and even better of him that he was (eventually) honest enough to admit it, all he did was apologize for being a jerk.

The problem is that he used the apology as an occasion to continue dropping little bombs about her tone and about how he wouldn't say the things she said. Lame; Sarah_l_r took a gutsy stand on that thread, and took a ton of patronizing crap for it, including from him, all of which she responded to quite evenly and reasonably. That nonsense about tone is ridiculous; she was consistently respectful and didn't rise to the many gratuitous patronizing and confrontational comments that various irate men -- including Coates -- tossed at her. She was the awesome one, but even in his apology, all he does is imply that her tone was somehow the problem. That's ridiculous. She respected him throughout, he disrespected her throughout, and then when he suddenly makes a grand concession, *he's* the big man? While dropping petty little asides about her "tone?"

I love TNC, and I'll continue to read him, but that thread was ugly. But especially since the whole thrust of the original post was "would you stand up and do the right thing when it hurts to do so," I've got to say that she outclassed him quite substantially on that count.

[Belle Waring]

Hmmm. I have to think about that. I did think he was being a douche at the time but I thought coming out with the full-on "I was wrong" was great. Maybe--I was wrong?

[zunguzungu]

I think it was great that he admitted being wrong. But it does really piss me off that after being a real shithead to the person who was making the very point he would later adopt, he at no point admits that, you know, she was right from the very beginning. (especially ironic given the original post's argument). Because what was really annoying about the exchange was how dismissive he was of her personally, how he turned everything she said into a personal attack when it was nothing of the kind. She was respectful while he was disrespectful, and then, while his follow up mea culpa adopts the substantive point she had made, he never actually corrects the fault of having disrespected her; to the contrary, he continues to disrespect her by all that nonsense about tone. I re-read both threads again, days afterwords, and came away sort of shocked at the contrast between how carefully she responds to everyone's substantive claims, and how categorically every single man in the entire thread (and a lot of women too) dismisses the things she said, often quite disrespectfully. For him to then turn around and adopt that very position, while still disrespecting her, makes me feel uncomfortable with all the TNC adulation that's followed. As I said, I love him, but this was, for me, far from a shining moment.

[emir]

What impresses me is that it's kind of a case of "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe". He still can't quite get, but he's prepared to accept that it's there and he's missing it. A lot of us can be resistant to accepting that kind of thing.

[albrt]

Welcome back.

[LizardBreath]

Certainly, what emir said -- that he's willing to trust someone else's judgment that he was wrong, enough to apologize sincerely on that basis, is really impressive.

OTOH, the kind of wrong he was is a little shocking. Coates is generally great, and generally very coolheaded and reasonable; he doesn't usually go off on people. Sarah_l_r's comments were right, but also weren't terribly hostile -- that they came across to him as so unpleasant that he was inviting her to stop reading the blog is weird. I know being called sexist is a hot button for lots of guys, even guys who are globally pretty reasonable on gender issues, but I wouldn't have guessed Coates in that category, and the comments weren't directed straight at him.

It'd be fascinating to know exactly what it was about what she said that pushed his buttons, because I don't see it at all, and if it's that strong a button for a reasonable guy like Coates, it's one that I'd like to understand in detail.

[lemmy caution]

My view of how Coates fell into this trap is as follows:

1) Sarah_l_r's first comment on the thread was "....Dude. Seriously?". Admittedly, the comment she was referring to included the sentence "I get why so many of the women in the movement were constantly getting hit on by the men in the movement." which completely deserves a "....Dude. Seriously?", but Coates is kind of prissy about comments that could appear to be a personal attack on another commenter.

2) The commenter that Sarah_l_r was responding to said "Exactly my first reaction--maybe its my admiration for her but I was like "Jesus Christ she was HOT! Whoever landed her was incredibly lucky. Thats an awesome future grandma in the making right there, someone worth growing old with..."". This type of statement is sexist but also can be seen by other men as a vulnerable confession. It is the kind of sexist statement that works men up when they get called out on. And, it is also a dirt common male belief that I and probably Coates share. If you think it through it doesn't make sense, but when you stop thinking it through, it comes back.

3)Also, while Coates post was completely non-sexist, I am pretty sure his thought process was triggered by the absurdly attractive women's mug shot in the first place. Beauty is like coffee.

4) At this point, Coates is on the defensive and then tries to argue for the defensibility of male desire in general which wasn't really the point.

The existence in men's minds of some fuzzy combined beauty/virtue metric is, of course, highly problematic. It effectively means that physically unattractive women are hazily judged to have a defect which they are morally responsible for.

Judging peoples character based on physical appearance is hard not to do though. Check out the women on the cover of the book the post was based on.

It is easy to think that you know what she is like, but of course you don't.

I am also am pretty sure that there are cultural trends in what moral qualities you are allowed to prescribe to which physical attributes. I don't think that women was put on the book cover by accident.

[kid bitzer]

i agree with your first read of the situation, bw:

tnc screwed up in his first post, sara_l_r was magnificent, he was a jerk.

then tnc talked to his s.o., and she read him the riot act, and he came back out and gave a full-on apology.

i think it was totally impressive, even if he was surprisingly jerky on the first go-round.

i do think coates is one of the best things in the blogosphere right now--i just love his stuff.