Two editorials in the New York Times have got me thinking about "rhetorical recalcitrance" or, in other words, the stubborn resistance of arguments that seem like they'd be easy to refute.
In "Final Period," Karen Houppert discusses a new birth control pill that eliminates periods completely, linking it to the recalcitrant argument that women are somehow physically and mentally debilitated by their periods. This argument has emerged periodically throughout the last 100 years (and more), and is generally trotted out any time women seek more rights or to enter into spaces from which they were previously excluded. In my research on women scientists during World War II I found an article by psychologist Georgene Seward, called "Psychological Effects of the Menstrual Cycle on Women Worker" (published in the Psychological Bulletin in 1944) in which she smashes previous arguments against women workers that were based on menstrual debility. She notes that women who got more exercise and worked more actually had fewer premenstrual symptoms, suggesting that PMS and related infirmities had more to do with culture than biology. Yet we still get the message that women are somehow weakened by menstruation and that, thanks to modern pharmaceuticals, we can just avoid menstruation all together.
Similarly, Paul Krugman argues that "the opponents of universal health care appear to have run out of honest arguments." While I wish this were the case, even Krugman cannot magically vanquish all arguments against universal health care by fiat. I'm sure that they will continue to circulate as the debate continues, with opponents offering the same objections they've been offering for years: universal health care = higher taxes, longer waits, etc.
What accounts for "rhetorical recalcitrance"? It doesn't seem to have much to do with logic, that's for sure, but it does have a lot to do with the values, beliefs, habits, and customs that give certain arguments a kind of "rightness" or "appropriateness" to audiences. Plus, these resistant arguments tend to have a lot of backing from economic interests.
On an unrelated note, from a NYT Editorial on Conrad Black: "there is nothing so frighteningly passive-aggressive as a well-irked Canadian."Also, with regards to Canadian Exceptionalism: "In Canada, any disagreement with the United States is typically cast in David and Goliath terms, with the Canadians as beleaguered underdogs and the Americans as rapacious swindlers (see: soft wood lumber, treaties regarding)."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I like the phrase "rhetorical recalcitrance"--and there do seem to be persistent arguments we can't get rid of, despite all common sense or evidence to the contrary.
I do wonder about the nature-science issue with respect to women's menstrual cycles. I mean, I suppose it is natural for women to have their periods, but there have been all sorts of reasons, throughout history, some legitimate others not so much, that limit women's ability (and in some cases very survival) based on the fact that they bleed once a month.
So I think the editorial may miss the mark--having the ability to rid oneself of menstruation may not really alleviate pain or provide tangible health benefits, but in some ways it may create a sense of freedom--not to be defined by monthly bleeding. The illusion of masculinity.
Of course, when I asked my own doctor about the pros and cons about this kind of pill, she said that a majority of the patients she put on this kind of bc complained of breakthrough bleeding, which caused them more frustration than having a monthly period, so she stopped recommending it. Sorry if that was TMI, but it's really fascinating, to me, the whole discussion of menstruation because so many people act like it's a tabboo subject (usually guys, they HATE hearing about details) and yet over half the population does it and it's the reason we're all on the planet--we weren't cloned after all.
Post a Comment