Eliza VanCort's Blog, page 2
October 28, 2020
INTERRUPTIONS: What They Taught Us
The “Presidential” and Vice Presidential Debate featured two kinds of interruptions that people face: Standard Issue Interruptions and Off-the-Rails Interruptions.
Interruptions occur for three reasons.
Friends are bantering and equally talking over each other.
Someone with more privilege thinks they have the right to interrupt someone with less privilege.
A bully is trying to show dominance.
One is fun! Two and three are are not fun at all, and difficult to combat. Here’s how you handle them.
STANDARD ISSUE INTERRUPTIONS
The way that you choose to shut down an interruption has consequences.
After the Vice Presidential Debate, many online questioned why Kamala Harris hadn’t been more forceful shutting Mike Pence down. That line of thinking is exactly why this type of interruption is so tough to deal with.
If women shut down interruptions they run the risk of of being labeled overly sensitive, “bitchy,” or other words historically used to shut down women with opinions.
Black women face even more challenges when interrupted. They must craft their response while navigating both womanhood and Blackness. With even the slightest show of frustration, they can be written off with the race specific stereotype, “Angry Black Woman." The conversation then shifts from what the woman is saying, to how she overreacted about being interrupted.
As a Black woman, Harris had to shut down these interruptions without losing voters’ favor, which is about as easy as a tightrope walker juggling fire.
And she did.
Harris handled the interruptions perfectly, using a sequence I like to call...
"TRY, TRY AGAIN, USE 'THE FORCE' "How Senator Harris did it.TRYPOLITE VERBAL DISAPPROVAL: Harris told Pence to stop. “Mr. Vice President, I’m speaking.” And then, with a smile, “I’m speaking.” ("I'm Speaking" may become the "Nasty Woman" rallying cry of this election. Masks, t-shirts, GIFs and TikToks are already flooding the internet.)
NON-VERBAL DISAPPROVAL: Pence kept on keeping on. Harris smiled that time honored smile, the one that says, “Does everyone see what this guy is doing and how I'm sitting here politely as he obnoxiously talks over me?”
TRY AGAINVERBAL DISAPPROVAL: Harris tries to speak again.
NON-VERBAL DISAPPROVAL: Pence still won’t wait his turn, and keeps talking. Harris inhales deeply for the sake of the audience, amping up her show of frustration.
“THE FORCE”NON-VERBAL & VERBAL: Harris raises up her hand in the “Stop” position, to signal to those watching how hard it is to shut him down, and says, “If you don’t mind letting me finish we can have a conversation, OK?”
INTERRUPTOR CONCEDES: Pence says, “Please.” (It’s important to note his “please” sounded like, “But of course, go for it, that’s what I wanted all along.” This is false. Imagine the smoke and mirrors he could have pulled off had she gone at him hard the first time.)
FINAL SHOW OF DISAPPROVAL: Harris continues with an exacerbated “OK.” She then plows into a powerful point, which he now fears interrupting. Boom.
The point of this approach is to draw as much of your audience's attention to the interruption as possible after your first attempt to shut down the interruption fails. This allows you to be much more forceful, and not look like you’re “overreacting” on your third attempt. This usually works when the interruptor wants to appear as if he is being reasonable and civil.
This approach does not work, however, when the point of the interruption is not to dominate the conversation, but instead to show dominance over the other person.
OFF-THE-RAILS INTERRUPTIONSTrump's style of interruption is meant to be noticed, and is done for the purpose of bullying and intimidation.
Many of us have encountered situations like this at least once in our lives.
Off-the-rails interruptions consist of a constant barrage of aggressive, rude, loud, dishonest, outlandish remarks meant to throw you off track, infuriate you, or intimidate you.
Thankfully, there are ways to handle situations like this.
I call this the “Try, Try again, Win by Walking” approach.
SAFETY FIRSTIf you are not safe, do whatever you need to do to stay safe, even if this means remaining silent. The tactic below presupposes three things.
An ally is there. (Emotional safety and a witness.)
The interruptor is not violent. (You are physically safe.)
You won’t suffer if you get them angry. (They can’t punish you professionally or personally later by firing you, withdrawing access to finances, etc.)
When you agree to a fist fight and your partner shows up with an AK 47, it’s hard to know what to do. Normal tactics won’t work in this scenario, as people who use it are like Trump. They cannot be shamed.
Here's what to do.
TRY, TRY AGAIN, WIN BY WALKINGRound 1Stop talking.
This may sound counter-intuitive, but it often works. Stop talking and let the interruptor talk. Do not try to stop them.
Visibly Distract Yourself
Occupy yourself with something else. Look in your purse. Take notes. Gaze into the sunset, as Biden did, gaze into the audience. Just be sure you say nary a word and let them talk. This may initially make them happy, but eventually it could make them angry. That’s ok. Anger may induce them to blurt out their opinion faster.
Look at them, but say nothing
When they have stopped talking, don’t do the normal human reaction, which is to jump in and try to get your opinion heard. Instead, turn your full attention to them, and let the silence hang for a few seconds. (Count to five, slowly. It will feel like forever.)
Prepare for Pushback
During the silence, they may get angry and say something like, “WHAT?! Why aren’t you talking?” or “Don’t you have anything to say!” They also may say nothing. Maintain steady eye contact.
Ask if they are ready to listen
When they have caught on to the fact that you won’t get into a screaming match with them say, “I’m waiting until you’re done interrupting me. Are you done?”
Double Check
They may say nothing, or they will say they are done. Either way, say “I will engage with you, but I need your assurance you will not interrupt me.” If they let you talk, you’re good. If not, Round 2!
Round 2 - Try AgainIf they say they will not interrupt you, but do so anyway, repeat the process above again.
This time your “double check” should be this:
“Last time you said you were ready for me to talk. Then you interrupted me again. Are you able to control yourself while I talk?”
They will probably say yes, because no one wants to look out of control. But then, you have the Trumps of the world. If you encounter what I have now coined a “Trump Interruptor,” go to ROUND 3!
ROUND 3 - WALKIf they interrupt you a third time, I can promise you this: They will not stop interrupting until you stop the engagement.
At this point, you should leave.
“But isn’t that giving up?” you ask.
No, it is setting a boundary that you will be heard, or you will not engage.
SETTING A BOUNDARY“You appear unable to control yourself. This is not a dialogue. I will not continue this conversation. I’m leaving.”
Then leave.
Be sure not to leave without saying the words above. This will signal to all the witnesses that you tried your best and the other person’s bad behavior, not you giving up, that resulted in the end of the engagement.
SHOULD YOU REALLY LEAVE? WHAT IF BIDEN LEFT?I believe Biden should have left. It did not serve him to stay, nor did it serve the American people.
Biden should have looked at Trump, used the strategies above, and then when they didn’t work, turn to the camera and say the following. (He should have these words even if Trump was talking over him.)
“The American people deserve better than this. This is not a dialogue. I believe these issues are important. They impact you and your families. Our President cannot control himself, or play by the rules. He is robbing all of you of a chance to learn about the issues and where we stand. You knowing what I stand for matters. I’m going outside to answer any questions about my policies from the press and from members of the public.”
Crazy? Unheard Of? Perhaps.
But so is behaving like a five-year-old rather than a civilized adult. When your opponent does not play fair, give him a chance. If he continues, leave the field. Leave the field and draw attention to the bad behavior. That’s the only way you will win.
LEAVE BULLIES ALONE.Imagine what Trump would have looked like standing, all alone, on that stage. When someone is off the rails, there is no reason to continue the engagement, even if you are debating the President of the United states.
The best thing to do with a bully is let them know this: You will not be bullied. If they do try to bully you, you will take your toys and go home, and others will cheer you on for doing so.
Trump could use this lesson.
Biden would have been an excellent teacher.
It’s a damn shame that President Trump and Vice President Pence’s greatest contribution to communication is teaching us all how to navigate their bad behavior. This is but one example of their suspect communication techniques.
Beyond serving as great examples of bad communication behavior, they also reminded the American people of something else as well.... as if 2020 wasn't enough of a reminder. Voting matters.
October 1, 2020
TRUMP’S DEBATE STRATEGY IS EMOTIONAL DISENFRANCHISEMENT. I LEARNED ABOUT IT 27 YEARS AGO FROM THE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE (NRCC).
“So, you’ll be happy to know I’m quitting the Republican party.”
In the summer of 1992, when I was in college, I interned at the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) through a program called The Fund for American Studies.I eventually developed a playful acquaintanceship (“friend” might be too strong a word) with Jack, a young man interning at the NRCC. On the last day of our program, he walked up to me and said, “So, you’ll be happy to know I’m quitting the Republican party.” The reason he quit has given me unsettling insight into why Trump behaved as he did in the first Presidential debate, and why it may get him reelected.
During Jack's first meeting at the NRCC, the men around the table were discussing using negative ads. Flipping Democrats to Republicans with those ads was not the goal. No, the goals was to depress turnout.
I call this strategy Emotional Disenfranchisement.
Emotional disenfranchisement is disgusting voters so much with the political process that they think all politicians are corrupt, there is no hope, and they might as well not vote because the candidates are “all the same.”
The goal is to repress the vote of people who are harmed by your candidates’ policies and demoralize the people who might work on their behalf. This is why Jack decided to leave the party he had been so dedicated to until this point.Emotional disenfranchisement works very well when you have a fringe element of very engaged voters, and a majority of voters with soft support for your opponent.
Since 1992 I have watched in dismay, year after year, as the Republicans employed the same strategy they did twenty-eight years ago, but with better reach, more ruthlessness, and less ethics. The right has no intention of winning this election with an honest debate about ideas.
They plan to use two tactics:
1. Old fashioned suppression. (Think Jim Crow, 2.0.)
2. Emotionally disenfranchising all but the most die-hard Trump supporters who could hear anything about their candidate and remain loyal.
If you believe this isn’t the case, watch the first Presidential debate again. It was “going low” amplified through a grotesque funhouse mirror executed perfectly by our President, an immoral but savvy communicator. The most extreme example of this was his refusal to disavow a White supremacy. Yes, Trump was catering to his supporters. But he was also hoping people of conscience would be so appalled by his racism they would check out in disgust.
Emotional disenfranchisement works
I was not surprised, but deeply dismayed, as I scrolled down my Facebook feed after the debate. Smart, committed, and politically active people were talking about how they “were done.” Most would still vote, but could no longer bring themselves to engage more than that.
Days later posts have switched from important articles about the election to pictures of beautifully plated dinners. My friends are highly educated, and committed to being a part of the political process. Moral and upright, they are people who truly care. Usually, they would be the last people to check out, yet a surprising number did. I don’t blame them. Emotional disenfranchisement works.
None of this is by accident. The farright knows exactly what they are doing. They want us to disengage politically online, tune out (and distrust) the news, and tolerate efforts to repress the votes of American youth and People of Color. Republicans are counting on us to feel so horrified, anxious, disgusted and helpless that we accept a slow slide into fascism.
We must do none of those things.
If we are White and privileged, we have a buffer, and therefor temptation to check out can be strong . As countries slide into tyranny, marginalized people are targeted before those with more power. The right is well aware of this. They are counting on White people exercising the privilege of putting our heads in the sand.
We must never accept the unacceptable.
White people must remember that checking out is a luxury, a luxury our fellow Americans in marginalized groups cannot afford. When we check out, we abandon them. We abandon our LBGTQ+ friends, our Black neighbors, or our loved ones with Persistent Mental Illness (SPMI).
Americans must fight emotional disenfranchisement, no matter how low our President sinks. We must stay more engaged than we ever have before. We must vote, poll watch, participate online, help get out the vote, and write letters to the editor. If the election is stolen during the interregnum, we must take to the streets.
At time we may feel repulsed, helpless or afraid. That’s ok.
We cannot, however, let our feelings dictate our actions.
The outcome of this election is dependent upon a nebulous force out of our control. It’s dependent upon Americans working to save our country. No matter how much like a petulant child Trump behaves, or how morally repugnant his minions act, we must not give up. Let’s all be like Jack.
We must never accept the unacceptable.
What happens next is up to us.
BIO: Eliza VanCort’s forthcoming book, “A WOMAN’S GUIDE TO CLAIMING SPACE: Stand Tall. Raise Your Voice. Be Heard” is available for pre-sale now and will be published in the Spring of 2021. She gives talks on empowering communication for the good of all. For more info, go to: elizavancort.com.
September 26, 2020
Dear Well Meaning White People
Dear Well Meaning Progressive White People,
I’m seeing a lot of Black and Brown folks understandably fraught and writing outraged posts throughout social media about the Breonna Taylor verdict. And I’m seeing a lot of us, and by “us” I mean White folks like me, commenting on those posts. Many comments are supportive and incredibly thoughtful.
Some, however, are not. They are arguing that issues of race are actually issues of class. In other words, the time honored, “But White people also…” response, but more adeptly delivered.
If you are partaking in this, I get it. I’ve so had similar reactions to Black and Brown outrage before. I have no doubt I will again. It’s really, really hard as White people not to make things about us because, well, most things are about us, by us, and for us.
Why Whites hijack the narrative
During the George Floyd protests, which somehow became about “rioting” on much of the White news, I recall an almost tearful White reporter looking at the camera and saying, “The real question we need to ask is this: Will the store owners ever get their merchandise back?” No. Joke. Our movies, fairy tales, and novels have White centered narratives. Our politicians, leaders, professors, and bosses are overwhelmingly White. History tells White stories. Did you spend more time on the Holocaust or middle passage in high school? “Discovering America” or the Trail of Tears?
So it’s understandable that when we hear a story about a Black woman being killed in her bed, we think, “But White people struggle with class!” We hijack the anti-Black violence conversation and move it to a conversation about class, one where we can all feel equally part of the persecution narrative. This makes sense. Historically narratives are for us, about us, and from our perspective. Unless we change history, it will dictate our present behavior. Understandable, but not OK.
For one thing, the facts don’t back this up.
As just one example of many over decades of scholarship on this topic, please check this out this New York Times article: Extensive Data Shows Punishing Reach of Racism for Black Boys.
Secondly, as humans, we are walking up a very steep hill, and it can be hard. At the moment, in this country many on the left believe our democracy, and by extension our way of life, is in peril. (I know I do.) That said, when oppressed groups are in peril, the most oppressed groups are targeted first. So, even if we are coming at this from the worst case scenario that we are devolving into a fascist state, or headed for civil war, Whiteness will still be relatively protected.
Violence is not delivered equally
Who do you think would be targeted by the radicalized right first? A poor cis White woman or a Black trans woman? All oppression is not created equal, nor is all violence delivered equally.
Black and Brown folks are expressing their intellectual and emotional outrage about anti-Black violence. As White people, it’s hard not to say, “Yes but here are examples of when it’s hard for us as well!” It’s our job to listen and to believe. If we are in a place to do so, it’s our job to ask how they (BIPCOs) want us (Whites) to lend support.
If you are having a hard time with this concept, take yourself back to the early days of oppression of Jews during WWII. A Jewish friend tells you this: She heard yet another Jew had been killed for doing nothing but being Jewish at the wrong place at the wrong time.
I’m talking before things began in earnest. I’m talking about when Jews were being killed on the streets for stepping out of line, but not taken away in cattle cars… yet. Should we lecture that Jew? Share that perhaps we need to examine how because of the Versailles Treaty, reparations reduced Germany industrial output, causing horrible hyperinflation, which resulted in resentment and economic hardship in Germany.
History can guide us
We could then go on to offer that this helped pave the way for Hitler to capitalize on anti-semitism? We could then explain to our grieving and outraged friend that what was happening isn’t actually a Jewish problem, but a socio-economic one. We could even encourage this person to throw their efforts into stopping Germany's economic collapse rather than focus on the killing of Jew. As someone whose family died in the Holocaust, even thinking of this scenario enrages me. I hope it would enrage you as well.
I hope, instead, folks would comfort that Jewish person, and listen. If they wanted to do more, they could also educate their fellow Germans about the fact that the Jews were not the enemy, and that it’s easy to blame others when you’re worried about food on your table. But we wouldn’t ask Jews to do this. That would be absurd, and it would be cruel.
I’m guessing this example may have helped you understand my point better. It was a White story about White oppression, so you may have related better. That’s OK. Just keep this in mind when listening to the stories of Black and Brown people.
You don’t need to understand, fully, what they are going through. In reality, there is nothing in this country White folks can possibly relate to when it comes to anti-black violence, which is why I had to move this example to another country from almost a century ago. We also don’t need to make their story about our oppression.
“But... White People!”
We have to stop trying to educate Black and Brown people about their experiences. The solution, of course, is to not keep quiet about race for fear of sounding racist. We are all racist, and Whites who engage in anti-racism work are going to screw up from time to time.
Instead, remember that we live in a system which amplifies our voices, and that we should use that voice. Yet when we use it, it must not be to undermine the voices of Black and Brown expereinces, but instead direct our anti-racist work at the source of the problem: Us.
Let’s put an end to, “But... White People!”
Yours,
A Well Meaning Progressive White Person
March 11, 2020
A Woman’s Complete Coronavirus Quarantine Shopping List (Yeah, women exist.
IT’S GREAT WE KNOW WHAT TO GET FOR OUR PETS, BUT WHERE ARE THE TAMPONS?
