Being Heard
I was reading the perfect book at the perfect time through the whole Kavanaugh vote: An Absolutely Remarkable Thing by Hank Green. It is an easy, enjoyable read AND it’s an embodiment of how little men can imagine the lives of women. It was how white males think about their voice vs. how the rest of society sometimes (or always) thinks about their voice. I know… probably not the most generous read or, frankly, orthodox read of a book about robots, but there it is.
And really, before this post goes any deeper, I want to pause and say that I liked this book. At the same time, I was disappointed by this book, but disappointed in the same way that I’m disappointed with JK Rowling for what she has done with Nagini. I’m still going to watch the next Fantastic Beasts — this isn’t baby with the bathwater — but it feels false to not point out how issues with this book (or that movie) reflect issues in society today. And even with all that, I still think people will enjoy it, and I apologize in advance to Hank Green for using his book to make a point.
So Green goes with a female narrator — a bisexual, female narrator no less — and weaves this story where she finds fame as a YouTuber because she happens to be the first to make a video about these giant robots who show up on earth. She builds an enormous following and she is being HEARD in a way that women are rarely Heard. I mean, yes, people hear sound coming out of our mouths, but after the vote last week, I think we can all agree that we’re not Heard (with a capital H to connote important, close listening). But she was Heard and was actually creating change.
It made me think about why I started this blog in the first place, over 12 years ago. I wanted to find other people going through the same experience. I wanted a place to set down my story. And, if I’m being honest, I wanted to be Heard in a way that infertile women aren’t Heard in today’s society. A case in point, it is well-documented and reported in face-to-face interactions and the media, from infertile people to psychologists to doctors, how hurtful it is to be asked when you’re going to have children. And yet… has anything changed in 12 years? What was asked then is still being asked now will still be being asked 120 years from now because some voices are Heard and other voices are not.
Our voices, a lot of the time, are not.
Oh, I’m sure you’re Heard in small circles. You’re Heard by people who already love you and are preconditioned to listen. You’re Heard at work because they know you well and know you’re an expert. That’s not the type of hearing I’m speaking about.
I’m speaking about the idea that lawmakers listen to you. White men get to experience that… a lot. Not always, but a lot. I’m speaking about the idea that culture listens to you. We wouldn’t have hashtags like #OscarsSoWhite if we didn’t have ample proof that only some voices are Heard. I’m speaking about the idea that people who don’t know you consider your words. When you speak up, when you vote, when you have an idea, it’s Heard.
I think what we saw last week, even more than the hurt that male lawmakers weren’t listening, weren’t Hearing us, is the idea that female lawmakers weren’t Hearing us, either. When people called Susan Collins a traitor to women, they weren’t saying that because of the way she was voting. They were saying that because of the way she wasn’t listening. She wasn’t Hearing. She was putting politics before people; party before situation. She had thousands of silenced women trying to open her ears, and she chose not to Hear them. Yes, she can recite what they said to her about sexual abuse because she heard in the literal, physical sense of incoming sound. But she didn’t Hear.
I have more thoughts that I’ll finish tomorrow, but I’ll leave you with this opening from Green’s book. It’s the reason I read the book in the first place, and the reason I was disappointed that his experience as a white male limited him from truly understanding how it feels to not be Heard as a woman and/or as a bisexual (and therefore, he misses so many opportunities to weave this feeling through the book rather than focus solely on the emotions of fame).
It could have been a deeper book. I thought it was going to be a deeper book. I’m not saying you must be exactly like your narrator to write a compelling story, but depth of understanding is key in jumping that chasm. I never believed that the narrator was female except for this paragraph on page 1:
I am in the wonderful position of having you by the short hairs. I have the story, and so I get to tell it to you the way I want. That means you get to understand me, not just my story, so don’t be surprised if there’s some drama. I’m going to attempt to come at this account honestly, but I’ll also admit to a significant pro-me bias. If you get anything out of this, ideally it won’t be you being more or less on one side or the other, but simply understanding that I am (or at least was) human.
That’s where I leave you. That we each have a story to tell, and we hope that other people will listen to it. Not for the story itself but for the understanding that comes from being Heard. More tomorrow.
12 comments
You are correct that women should be Heard! But this does not mean that they should be believed no matter what. It is a fact that white women used to accuse black men of rape… and this led to lynchings based on zero evidence. I do not want to go back to those dark times of “accusation equals condemnation”, whether it be for any gender, or any race. You have stated that Kavanaugh is a rapist… but you have no evidence of that, and I think it is very irresponsible to publicly make statements of which you have absolutely no proof. It is a scary time when we put “believe a woman” (or anyone) over “innocent until proven guilty”. This is emotion-based thinking, not fact-based, not law-based. In the world in which you seem to want to live, there is really no need for a court, or judges, or jurors… only accusation and condemnation. Please set your emotion aside and think this through rationally and responsibly.
Chelsea, but they should be believed when they provide ample evidence or provide people to corroborate their story — believed so a thorough, exhaustive inquiry can be made. I don’t know if we’ll come to an agreement, but I do want you to know that I’m listening. I’m reading carefully to what you’re saying, and I’m thinking.
I think, sometimes, people get in their own way. Hank Green seems like a pretty “woke” guy generally, but this seems like too far of a reach. It feels…encroaching, and I only meet 1/3 of the character’s description. Even with the quoted paragraph.
Being heard is such a frustrating effort. It’s our main source of dissatisfaction at work. We’re implementing a new system for all of our workflow in the near future, and despite our many protests, much of our section’s design plan was to shoehorn the old stuff into the new program. It’s not going to work well, and instead of a fresh start, we’re getting dysfunctional nonsense that I couldn’t make work in the trials. All because people do not want to listen…
Ugh. Yes there was a period where black men were falsely accused of rape of white women. But studies and stats from the current era show that false reporting is extremely rare. Prosecutors know this. Which made it even more infuriating that a prosecutor was complicit in the hearing charade (well, consider the source—Arpio country).
I’ve just written something on my taketwo365 wordpress blog about women’s voices being ignored. I hear you.
Mel, Thank you for your thoughtful response. I do agree that, when there is ample evidence, a woman ought to be believed. I also agree that, no matter the situation, a woman ought to be heard. However, in this case, with Dr. Ford, there was so little corroborating evidence. I am NOT saying that Dr. Ford did not go through a terrifying ordeal at some time in her life. There were so many holes in her story though (the true reason behind the two doors, her fear of flying, amongst other things), as well as the fact that she couldn’t remember anything that could give credibility to her story. Even her witnesses were unable to corroborate her story. Again, I am not saying that she is lying. I just don’t know. None of us do.
To Working mom of 2, yes I would agree that false reporting today is “rare”, at under 10%. However, in a case by case basis, a person can’t be condemned because 90% of accusations are true. Again, this is the whole foundation of our court system.
One of my main issues with this whole situation is that I have seen so many women screaming that Kavanaugh is a rapist, with no actual evidence. Is it not possible that this is one of the one-in-ten (or 15 or 20) times that the man was not guilty? Even crazier to me, I saw many women saying, “Believe Christine” BEFORE the testimonies even came to light. This is scary.
We, as women, need to rally with one another. But NOT at the expense of truth and justice. I would never want to believe a woman, simply because she is a woman.
And if we do always believe women, how far do we take it? Only in matters of sexual assault and abuse? Or are women just more honest, over all, in every matter? Because I know many women (yes, and men too, but we’re talking about women here) who are liars. And even in the matters of sexual abuse and assault, I personally know two women who lied in those areas. One claimed to have been raped in a parking garage, was initially believed, and then later admitted that she had fabricated the whole thing (after, through 24 hour video surveillance that was looked at) to cover up an affair. Another claimed she was coerced into sex, and it latter came out that the man in question initially turned down the sex because of lack of condoms, and that, at a later date, when the sex happened, she was the one who had brought the condoms over the man’s house and was a very willing participant.
I have read, and watched, so many articles and videos, from so many different perspectives on Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh, and ultimately, I just don’t feel that there is close to enough evidence to call the man a rapist and condemn him.
If not a rapist, then definitely a wannabe rapist– Ford is only one of several credible accusers (the others did not get a hearing at all) and that yearbook of his is HORRIFIC. The lack of a credible FBI investigation is a criminal shame. We could have known something and now we will never know. And yet this guy is a supreme court justice for life. This is a travesty.
His problems with women and alcohol aside, his blatant partisanship attacking democrats and his unprofessional behavior at that hearing should have automatically disqualified him. As should the multiple demonstrated instances of his lying under oath.
There are plenty of partisan judges they could have gotten who wouldn’t have made a complete mockery of the system. Gorsuch had no problem getting through. Roberts either.
Chelsea, do you also believe that Clarence Thomas never ever in a million years sexually harassed anybody? That there’s just no evidence there? Because there’s (literally) a whole book of credible accusations on that. Not just Anita Hill.
@nicoleandmaggie,
“If not a rapist, then definitely a wannabe rapist”? What? Did you look into his other accusers?
Regarding Ramirez, CNN reported, “Ramirez was initially hesitant to speak publicly, she told the magazine, partly because her memory contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. She was unsure of his role in the incident at first, but after six days of carefully assessing memories and consulting with her attorney, Stan Garnett, Ramirez told The New Yorker she felt confident enough in her recollections to say she remembers it was Kavanaugh who had exposed himself.”
This does not sound at all like a reliable account to me. Does it to you?
And Julie Swetnick? Have you read her accounts at all? As an adult, she apparently attended parties (in the plural) of minors, where there was drugging and “gang rapes” happening. As an over 18 adult, she continued to attend these parties? She claims that Kavanaugh was present but does not say that he participated in these druggings and rapes; by this logic, she would be just as complicit as Kavanaugh (more so, being an adult) by not coming forward and protecting all these girls who were continuing (again, over the course of many parties!) to be raped. But besides that, there is no evidence whatsoever that these rape parties ever occurred, no witnesses to corroborate her story.
As far as Kavanaugh’s behavior during the hearing was concerned? Is it possible that he was an innocent man accused of RAPE and was maybe a little defensive? I’ll tell you, if I was accused of a heinous crime, of which I was innocent, I’d be defensive too. I’d be angry, I’d be frustrated, I’d probably be a lot more pissed than Kavanaugh. Wouldn’t you? But, he’s supposed to be a level-headed judge you might argue, able to put his emotion aside? Yes… when he’s acting as judge. I think there are a whole different set of rules when one is actually under attack for crimes which one did not commit. Even the most hardened crime scene investigator, when faced with a the mutilated body of his or her own child, would probably lose their cool… but that doesn’t mean, in all other cases, he or she would be able to remain professional. In that hearing, Kavanaugh was not in the role of “professional”, but rather, “accused”.
Regarding his attacks on democrats? Do you realize that he was defending himself?
Yes, he probably drank too much alcohol; I’ll give you that one. However, if drinking too much in high school and college is a deal-breaker when it comes to getting into a high profile political career later in life, then there are a whole lot of politicians, men and women both, that need to step down. Also, while I’m sure that alcohol is involved in many rape cases, over indulging certainly does not mean that the over-indulger has raped or ever will rape.
Regarding your last paragraph, I honestly don’t know anything about Clarence Thomas, so I don’t have anything to say to that. But did you read anywhere that I wrote that Kavanaugh, “… never ever in a million years sexually harassed anybody”? Please don’t put words in my mouth. Kavanaugh could be a rapist for all I know. But then again, so could Obama. If a woman came forward with a claim about our last president, I wouldn’t simply take the woman at her word either.
The whole thing makes me so sad and so tired. Misogyny, infertility, entitlement, all the conflict. Some days I can’t deal.
And I Hear you.
… I don’t hear Chelsea…
Probably for good reason.
It’s uncomfortable when someone makes you think outside your bubble, nicoleandmaggie. So it’s easier to shut one’s ears than to actually to hear. I’m actually bummed that you’re not open to a dialogue that doesn’t fit your agenda.
So many thoughts after reading this and the comments. What I struggle with most is this flat out assumption that ALL white men benefit while the rest of us suffer. This thinking flat out scares me as 1) I’ve witnessed poor first-generation white boys being abused by men and women from all cultures who come from privilege solely based on this assumption and 2) it is too easy of an answer for a very complex problem. The 0.1% is diverse as are the 10% and racism is not limited to one segment of the human race.
But the other part is about being heard. This I do agree with you on. It is so difficult to be heard when what one is saying flies in the face of popular opinion. It still amazes me how often people don’t actually listen to one another, with preconceived ideas and values filtering the conversation for both parties. It’s a big danger of the echo chamber.
I for one believe Dr. Ford’s accounts. But I also think that resolving all of this will require us hearing people like Chelsea, walking through the facts while leaving opinions at the door. Even at the end of the day we continue to disagree, the conversations need to start happening because we aren’t enemies and need to recognize that we all have a common goal.