Male Domination of Discussion

So...you try to continue on putting words in where they were not expressed by me?

Please do reference where i gave any commentary at all about what you are trying to infer i did...other than that got not much to say to people who are quite obviously non-allies, on any front.

Sven wrote:

When men are viewed as dominating a discussion, what inhibits women from participating in that same discussion?

The problem I have run into over and over, and not just on babble, is trying to participate in a discussion, and the men simply ignoring my posts, talking around me as if I weren't there.  True, it's entirely possible that I'm not making any salient points, but on some occasions male posters have repeated what I've already said, and the guys start responding to these ideas as if they were being stated for the 1st time.

Have women noticed other things?

And outrage. The more the better. Directed at allies who dont cut the mustard, as well as at the acknowledged targets.

But what makes it tricky to see is that there is that passion, which we must have, is on a continuum with outrage.

Just like arguing a point is on the same continuum as dominating a discussion.

In arguing a point you say the same things as you say when you are part of initiating or perpetuating in the domination of a discussion. But the situation of the two in the discussion is different- and most of us behave in a way that shows we do know the difference, even if we are not acknowledging or recognizing it.

[/quote]

Sineed wrote:

...on some occasions male posters have repeated what I've already said, and the guys start responding to these ideas as if they were being stated for the 1st time...

I've lurked on Rabble/Babble for years and never bothered to join because there are just too many people pontificating and not reading....

BTW - I finally joined because that exact sentence in the quote - Brilliant articulation of what I feel/observe.

remind wrote:

So...you try to continue on putting words in where they were not expressed by me?

 

Please do reference where i gave any commentary at all about what you are trying to infer i did...other than that got not much to say to people who are quite obviously non-allies, on any front.

Uh, no...  The exchange just brought a question to mind.  It's not all about you, you know. 

My question was more generated by the defense of vandalism as a tactic and the denial that it's a male-typical sort of reaction.  Additionally, that it's a useful action.

KenS, having recently been at the blunt end of your (misplaced) wrath, I will challenge you on that one. We often feel the stones thrown at us so acutely, while minimizing the rocks we've pitched ... and that are nestled within the palms of our own hands.

We need to fight for and win advanced democracy in order that more women participate where it counts for something in the halls of power. At that point, no longer will it be men only who write the laws which govern the lives of women and their children.

Hold on, Timebandit, I believe I have a good point, too. I see KenS ascribing all sorts of behaviour to others, some of which I only recently experienced at the typing hands of the man himself. I believe in calling folks on this kind of stuff.

I will also gently note that there was only a brief time when babble was not overwhelmingly male dominated, so there is not much of a control to compare to.

I dont think its just the pressure to be radical- or be piled on and what not.

Its also the pressure to be articulate- or to be unusually confident in yourself even if you know you aren't as articulate as those other people.

And there's more- more things that if you arent you're going to sink here, if not get outright pushed. As has been said already- who needs that? And least of all women.

Expressing oneself well is good. Its good for everyone in the discussion.

Arguing your point about what needs to be done- this is what a board like this is for. Thats a good thing. And the discussion is by nature going to get aggressive some of the time. If it isnt all the time, aggressive is fine. even so is occassionaly casting stones.

But when you must be radical enough, or you will be piled on. And when you must be articulate as a minumum to be heard or to feel that its safe to enter the arena... those are sure signs of a gendered discussion frame. And where thats true you'll find men giving free reign to behaviour that fosters and builds that male domination.

writer wrote:

Hold on, Timebandit, I believe I have a good point, too. I see KenS ascribing all sorts of behaviour to others, some of which I only recently experienced at the typing hands of the man himself. I believe in calling folks on this kind of stuff.

I agree that seem to have a point. But I'm not sure what it is.

I think what you saw me being is testy and aggressive. Disagree if you think different. But I wasnt talking about people being testy and aggressive. I don't think the problem is friction that comes from people being just being aggressive. Remind is one of the most aggressive people I know of anywhere, and I've often enough been the butt of her pointiness. But I can shed that like I cant shed being fenced and pushed into a corner.

Sven wrote:

So, let me ask this: Is this a matter of men communicating with women differently than how men communicated with other men or do men generally communicate with men and women in the same manner but women don't communicate the way men do?

It starts with the fact that men in our society are socially conditioned to believe that their voices matter more than women. The fact that we, as a culture, claim to value both genders equally through documents like the Bill of Rights, the Charter, political soapboxes, etc (leaving aside that "both" in this sentence is problematic in itself), does nothing to affect the social fact that when authority speaks, it comes from a man. This social conditioning issues from all points of our society--from facile facts like how male politicians outnumber female and how professors, scientists and other "important" vocations are more likely to be filled by men to a myriad of quieter, more subtle ways. The Beshdel Test thread I opened recently is an example of those.

My partner told me an anecdote which makes this point quite elegantly. On the last day of clas in a University feminism course she took, the professor asked all the students in the class to put up their hand if they had contributed regularly to class discussion, like asked questions or made comments once every couple of weeks or so. About fifteen people in a lecture of 150 put up their hand, and about ten of them were men. There were only twelve men enrolled in the entire class! See, said the professor. We still have work to do.

babble comes from a place that acknowledges this basic tenet of feminism and hopes to challenge it, in whatever ways, however small, at all times. So when we talk about male domination of discussion, it's not about pillorying rabble for being anti-feminist, it's about asking the question: Why, even here, where we know, acknowledge and claim to understand this problem, can we not make a space where women posters feel valued, safe and equal?

Can you begin to understand the frustration now?

remind wrote:

 Also, your  carrying on about your being told you are not being pure enough, excuse me, but really I am going to be blunt and ask you; just where YOU think you are an aligned ally at with those at babble?

...cause I have looked and looked for it, and I can't find one example of you being an activist, or 'stating anything progressive' about anything here. Nadda zip ziltch.

remind, this is bordering on a personal attack of Timebandit, and it's not okay. Please dial it down.

remind wrote:

Tmebandit, you were responding to me, so I took it in that context. If you meant it broader then you should have stated a larger context.

Also, your  carrying on about your being told you are not being pure enough, excuse me, but really I am going to be blunt and ask you; just where YOU think you are an aligned ally at with those at babble?

...cause I have looked and looked for it, and I can't find one example of you being an activist, or 'stating anything progressive' about anything here. Nadda zip ziltch.

I possibly should have been clearer.  Your exchange sparked a thought that kind of coalesced some other aspects of the thread.  No need to get exercised about it.

Now.  I did not carry on about anything of the sort.  KenS pointed out a pattern and I think he has a good point - and I'd like to thank you for illustrating it so well.

You see, you're subjecting me to a progressive litmus test.  I could respond with my lefty resume, causes I've worked toward, organizations I've belonged to, dig up posts I've made (lots over 9 years!) to prove that you're wrong and that I am, indeed, worth my progressive salt.  I could defend where I'm aligned and all that.  You've already deemed me not pure enough and asked me to prove that I am or slink away in shame.

But what I would be doing if I complied with your request is just what KenS talked about.  I'd be going on the defensive and kowtowing to your vision of what a progressive is and giving you the power to tell me who and what I am and whether I am worthy. 

I don't call myself an activist.  So what?  Where in babble policy does it say I have to be one to participate on this board?  And who appointed you arbiter and gatekeeper?  I'd like to point out that if Maysie or Catchfire made the same request, I'd probably treat it differently, but so far as I know, remind, you and I are equals on this board and I have nothing I need to prove to you.

Timebandit wrote:

remind wrote:

Tmebandit, you were responding to me, so I took it in that context. If you meant it broader then you should have stated a larger context.

Also, your  carrying on about your being told you are not being pure enough, excuse me, but really I am going to be blunt and ask you; just where YOU think you are an aligned ally at with those at babble?

...cause I have looked and looked for it, and I can't find one example of you being an activist, or 'stating anything progressive' about anything here. Nadda zip ziltch.

I possibly should have been clearer.  Your exchange sparked a thought that kind of coalesced some other aspects of the thread.  No need to get exercised about it.

Now.  I did not carry on about anything of the sort.  KenS pointed out a pattern and I think he has a good point - and I'd like to thank you for illustrating it so well.

You see, you're subjecting me to a progressive litmus test.  I could respond with my lefty resume, causes I've worked toward, organizations I've belonged to, dig up posts I've made (lots over 9 years!) to prove that you're wrong and that I am, indeed, worth my progressive salt.  I could defend where I'm aligned and all that.  You've already deemed me not pure enough and asked me to prove that I am or slink away in shame.

But what I would be doing if I complied with your request is just what KenS talked about.  I'd be going on the defensive and kowtowing to your vision of what a progressive is and giving you the power to tell me who and what I am and whether I am worthy. 

I don't call myself an activist.  So what?  Where in babble policy does it say I have to be one to participate on this board?  And who appointed you arbiter and gatekeeper?  I'd like to point out that if Maysie or Catchfire made the same request, I'd probably treat it differently, but so far as I know, remind, you and I are equals on this board and I have nothing I need to prove to you.

So, in summary, you got nothing, eh?

This thread, and the dismissal of Timebandit by Remind and now RP and the tap on the wrist mod response, is a perfect example of why tumbleweeds blow through babble at a time when progressive discussion should be courting people.

Perhaps babble's problems are less about gender, colonial, class and political problems, and much more about being narcissists who value their own bad selves more than anonymous debate.  Example: the busiest threads on babble are always about babblers themselves and "what's wrong with babble", oh me, oh my.  No one is paying attention to my fine prose - travesty! 

Nice cheap shot, RevPlease.  I'm sure you'll be pushing my ass towards the front lines any day now. 

Yes, occasionally I do need to resort to the tactics of the perps.  Or... maybe I'm one of them....  Gaia help me.

At the risk of appropriating the female voice here - this thread is not about your problems on babble, dude. 

About 87 posts too long, Maysie.

I think the topic is excellent, as well. I think the thread has been disappointing.

So Farmpunk, the problem is everyobody else and their priorities (narcissists!)? The problem is the policy statement? There is no chronic, overwhelming gender imbalance to acknowledge and perhaps address?

There is no need for self-examination? It's everybody else?

Thanks for the context of your post, Timebandit. Yes absolutely, I think we can all do it. Which is why I wrote "we" in the first place. The trick is to remember this tendancy and not pretend otherwise while pointing out the rock throwing of others. I know that I need to bow out from babble for months at a time because of what I consider an unhealthy toxicity that brews here – sometimes under the surface, sometimes right there on top. When I'm here, I know that I can contribute to that toxicity, (it feels) sometimes just to keep my head above the water. I'm really trying not to do it this time around, after quite a long break. It takes a lot of effort, with all the hairtrigger suspicion, hurt pride, mindreading and aggressiveness that seems to be lobbed from all directions.

From what I read here, a lot of people feel they are the targets. From what I know, a lot of women have quickly come and gone, and very very few stick around long-term. Even fewer post as much as we find several male regulars posting. Some have been traumatized here - yes, sometimes by women. Perhaps by me.

I feel the problem can be the dynamic of the board, in our larger culture, which is patriarchal. And self-examination is just the thing, especially at a time like the one we are living in. It is quite the opposite of egotistical / narcissistic. I find the urge to label it such, ridicule the process and push it away kind of interesting.

Other theories are welcome of course!

And of course Caissa is welcome to trip in, read this thread, then snark about its very existence. And likely not see this as lobbing a rock for absolutely no good reason at all, contributing nothing meaningful to a discussion that obviously, at this length, others think matters.

See men's failing to weigh in on this topic, as denial that it is occuring.

A thread like this is going to wander. Even if it ends up being very good.

And it would be great and enormously helpful if it never got really and thoroughly snarky. But even if that happens, it doesnt mean it can't get anywhere.

But minimal participation of men on the other hand- that will be fatal.

Just a note that its not to be assumed that everybody on Babble, or all those to some degree regulars feels that they are often a target.

We're hearing more here from people who feel they have been targets. Goes with the nature of the discussion so far. Because those are people who [a.] have accumulated frustrations, and [b] its safe for them to venture into this.

Pllleassee caissa, stop with playing the victim, and stating I was putting words in your mouth, your extact words were:

Quote:

ETA: One of the reasons I am reticent to enter this conversation is the feeling that anything short of a mea maxima culpa on the part of males will be construed as denial.

You clearly made a male female distinction, whereby you believed males were going to be expected to...so who other than females/women were going to construe, anything short of the mea maxima culpa, it certainly can't be other males, as you lumped all males together.