Persisting: Cross-Examination
By: Indu Pandey
Introduction:
Kamala Harris is a former prosecutor turned Attorney General of California turned U.S. Senator. What do we have in common with Sen. Harris? More than meets the eye. In cross examination, women in debate are cut off, ridiculed, condescended to, and shushed. Like Harris, we are “hysterical” and “un-courteous” when we do not acquiesce to our opponents trying to silence us.
The Problem:
Cross-ex is the only time during a round where debaters directly interact with each other in a battle of wits. However, this often devolves into a battle of genders.
In more traditional circuits, girls lose rounds because they interrupt male opponents who previously interrupted them. Judges who are unfamiliar with adjudicating rounds will sometimes vote for whoever “dominates” a cross-ex. But it’s a Catch-22 because if a girl attempts to dominate cross-ex, they’re suddenly “bitchy” or “rude.”
Debaters will often “mansplain” arguments in girls’ own cases to the girls. Mansplaining, or when a boy condescendingly or patronizingly explains something to a girl, is pervasive both within debate, but also in the professional world.
Women, compared to men, are also more likely to be interrupted by another person (Hancock and Rubin 2015). Men are more likely to interrupt in an intrusive way (Anderson and Leaper 1998). And, women are more likely to respond positively or forgivingly to being interrupted, often laughing, smiling, agreeing, or otherwise trying to facilitate the conversation (Farley 2010).
“Interruptions matter: They are linked to social power—in dyadic interactions, the more powerful partner is more likely to interrupt (Kollock et al., 1985)... Mansplaining is problematic because the behavior itself reinforces gender inequality. When a man explains something to a woman in a patronizing or condescending way, he reinforces gender stereotypes about women’s presumed lesser knowledge and intellectual ability. This is especially true when the woman is in fact more knowledgeable on the subject.”
Scientific research overwhelmingly concurs – interruption and mansplaining are gendered.
Whether it’s a male opponent interrupting women to explain supply-demand economics, the cap K, or your own affirmative case, women in debate need to stand up, and we all need to put an end to these biases. It’s no longer acceptable to lose speaker points for being “too aggressive” by responding to hostility and misogyny with assertiveness.
The Solution:
The community needs to have a referendum on sexism in cross-ex. Competition doesn’t justify domination over young female debaters. Boys enter conversational spaces like debate with a leg up on girls in terms of personal credibility and confidence to speak their minds. Girls are mostly taught from a young age to be demure, un-opinionated, and quiet.
Not only are young women taught to act this way in their everyday lives, but also in the way they are taught to debate. Boys are applauded when they dominate during cross-ex. Yet when a girl does the same, she is often times told that she’s being rude or inconsiderate. Women are told that they should not interrupt their opponent and they must let their opponent. Yet when men are overpowering in cross-ex, they are applauded as “dominant” and “knowledgeable” and rewarded with higher speaker points.
Judges should take into account the gendered spaces they preside over when considering speaker points and criticisms. To judges who selectively chastise girls for being “overly aggressive,” call girls “whiny” or “hysterical” when they feel offended, or ridicule girls for high or “squeaky” voices: don’t. Be an inclusive educator. Advocate for the next generation of women who persist and ask tough questions. This will not only help address some of the disparities women in the debate space suffer from, but will also contribute to fostering the next generation of strong, powerful women, able to stand up and have their voices heard.
These problems also appear with debaters of color and non-identifying folks, who also enter the debate forum on unequal footing. It’s also important to discuss the intersections of debaters’ different identity categories and how they contribute to this discrimination, in particular women and non-identifying folks of color.
Conclusion:
Being assertive and standing up for yourself isn’t mean. It’s powerful. Little things like telling an opponent to stop interrupting you to asking your opponent to stop patronizingly explaining a concept to you make a difference. Be fierce, be confident, be you. Your voice matters.
Share your stories with us via our Facebook page or email us at: hello@girlsdebate.org. We’d love to follow up with some anonymous (or not, with your consent) narratives on cross-ex in the future.