Remember when there was that sexist criticism of Hillary, claiming that she shouts too much?
Woodward apologized for “dwelling on the tone issue,” but said “there is something here where Hillary Clinton suggests that she’s almost not comfortable with herself.”
Clinton should “lower the temperature” and “get off this screaming stuff,” he added.
That crap is called tone policing.
Tone policing is a dangerous habit that has real psychosocial consequences. By telling people not to express their anger at oppression, tone police are not only promoting their own personal comfort over that of someone who is in pain, but they are also asking the angry people to suffer in silence, which has very serious psychological consequences.
It’s a tool of oppression. It’s not only used for sexism. It’s used for racism and heteronormativity and ableism and just about any -ism you can think of. It’s a classic tool for abusers. When the abused is angry about the way they are being treated, they are shut down for having an angry tone, as though they are supposed to be calm and pleasant about being abused.
So, yes, it was sexist to use it against Clinton. It was also simply oppressive.
Now, who gets to determine what “civil” behavior and speech is, and what is not? Even as administrators espouse the value of “community” it is clear that the final arbiters of civility are they themselves. And this is what makes signing on to civility something one should think twice about — civility is in the eye of the powerful.
I refer to this as the tyranny of politeness. When the elite class is telling someone who is challenging their power to “tone it down”, they are wielding their power under the guise of requiring civility. It’s oppressive to wield that at Hillary. It is equally oppressive to wield it at Sanders.
To say that one won’t debate him because of his tone is highly problematic. Regardless of someone’s tone, if you have a substantive argument, you make your case. You only call out tone, if you want to shut someone down without making a persuasive case about the substance of the debate.
Pointing out disagreements in policy is not a matter of tone. That’s a legitimate subject of debate that should be pursued with as much passion as the debaters are feeling. Telling them not to shout or bellow or be angry or whatever tone you don’t like is tone policing.
Besides, we all should be angry about how we are abused by the elite capitalists. It makes sense that our potential representatives are shouting.
Also, complaining that someone is “negative” — unless they are calling you inappropriate names or making up lies about your personal history — is tone policing. They disagree with you. You wouldn’t need a debate if they didn’t. It’s not inappropriately “negative” to highlight what they disagree with you about or examples of your behavior which demonstrate how they disagree with you. That’s healthy arguing. Laying it all out for everyone to hear is how people make informed choices about whom they support.
Debating good. Tone policing unacceptable. By anyone. It’s not good for the goose or the gander. Let’s all stop please.