Male Domination of Discussion, part 2

I'd like to leave that comment out there by itself for a while. But I don't know when I get another chance to throw something in the pot, so I'm going to move on. But I think it would be useful to get comments on that much in its own right, especially any different takes on the existence or not of a persistent negative babble dynamic.

I would expect that there is some degree of consensus that this Babble dynamic isnt a good thing, and that it would have something to do with the very large gender imbalance here.

But I'd guess that the last bit ends with an "in principle" caveat: that its more or less a truism that it has something to do with the gender imbalance.... but that the analysis for a lot of people comes to a dead stop on that word something.

I started this thread early yesterday. Comment #1 was a spare reference to the predecessor threads, the predecessor thread having been closed for length, and transparently in need of some new entries.

When I went to bed there were over 100 visits, but 0 comments.

That would be at least 70 different people looking in. And safe to say, a broader range of the regulars than the small slice that has posted in these threads. Small slice of the opinion range, and disproportionately female even in the threads opened by men with inviations to other men. [Probably no more men than you would find in a feminist forum thread where our welcome and contribution is at best dubious.]

I have already said that I suspect the consensus about a Babble dynamic would stop at the truism that it has something to do with the gender imblalance here.

It was suggested in the previous thread that maybe this kind of dynamic is just to be expected when struggles are so daunting and there is no road map. [It was only suggested as a possibility.] I explicitly disagreed- pointing to what I beleive is a common experience of discussing the same contentious issues within organizations we are part of, where argument and disagreement is expressed without the persistent hostility and defensiveness.

We're only getting a very narrow range of perspective in these discussions.

I know that there are Babble regulars who are reading these threads, who subscribe to the importance of at least addressing gender imbalance, but who do not agree with the general directions that these threads are following.

Men who have an opinion about just about everything else, and articulate it; but on this do not agree, disagree, or offer alternative thoughts.

Nada.

,

milo204 wrote:

again, i think this is a problem with people in general who aren't good at communicating, not a gender issue so much.  At least here on babble.

Or is it the number of 'people' who actually are very adept at 'communicating'?

And just to note, again, that this is still a discussion about a topic that allegedly concerns most regulars on babble, but as yet engages only a small and unrepresentative slice of the regulars.

We live in a male dominant society, and we aspire to change that.

Aspects of that are changing a lot. Social change organizations broady considered are now often female led or largely female driven.

But some things change little or not at all. Really, they probably are changing, but it doesnt look that way to us. And even if they are changing, there is obviously lots of work to be done.

This is painfully obvious when it comes to womens' bodies and womens' sexuality- where if anything, things may be getting worse.

Then there is language, which alwys changes glacially. And our particular concern here: what I guess I would call analytical discussions, Babble being one place for those.

Males and maleness dominate discussions. [And the 'maleness' part is crucially important. We focus naturally on what males in particular and particular males do. But domination is as much about 'maleness'... which is inherently the opposite of transparent.]

And beyond that general domination, we have even a greater degree of it where the topics are politics [broadly speaking], history and power. All especially male identified, back across the generations.

So while we intentionaly and deliberately set about changing male domination, the very means of discourse we use to discuss it have been taken unchanged from what it has been for many generations. Literally: our means of discourse is thoroughly saturated with and expressing male domination and maleness.

To a degree, we know this intuitively and even acknowledge it. Somewhat. But even as we do, we are typically blind to the 'operative details'. Even in denial... with no small number of us actively engaged in denial.

I'm not proud to say that I'm probably worse than average when it comes to face
to face conversation and habits of male domination of discussion. Big surprise,
eh?

That said, in 'formal' situations- such as meetings [and even small and less
structured ones]- I keep that in check and do more than my share of paying
attention to and drawing out what others say, or might be wanting to say. Thats the milieux that is my frame of reference for the babble discussion
dynamic, which I will return to.

There aren't a lot of men in my world, and both my immediate and extended families
do a good job of keeping me in check. [And my just turned 16 daughter does it
disarmignly easily- most often with humour.] But even I notice the difference of
how effortlessly and mostly un-self-conciously I do the right thing in one
world, but hardly seem to try in my personal life. And when I was thinking about
it, in social circumstances I can easily be doing the conversation dominating
schtick with the same people that I do the opposite in meetings and other work
situations.

I've been in a number organizations where there are a lot of differences to work
out. Typically, deciding what to do, at what pace, how much compromise to make,
with how much control, etc. As to approach of the matters at hand, these
discussions are structurally the same as the kind of discussions that engender
'the babble dynamic'.... and were the same structurally for organizers of the
60s movements.

And all of these 'what to do' discussions use what we have inherited from our
culture as the means of discussion: what I upthread referred to as an unchanged expression of male power.

Despite that, in all of the organizations I have been invloved with after the collapse of the movements born in the 60s, the growth of womens leadership happened, and there was none of the oppressive and stultifying we MUST be more radical BS that permeated the same kind of discussions in 60s movement organizations.

And in that context, like a lot of people I learned to pick and choose good times to have my say, to pay attention to my chosen position getting a fair airing rather than whether its able to prevail, to help make sure that people had a chance and encouragement to express themslves [without regard to expectations of their viewpoint].... all the characteristics of a healthy discussion dynamic.

When that happens, we havent 'solved' the cultural norm we share of the gendered discussion dynamic. It will be there until there are literaly billions  of increments of working in other ways. Until then, its still the dominant norm. And even in healthy and productive discussion 'locations' we see constant manifestations of it- for example, people [usually men] who despite knowing the time limitations will run on or try to squeeze in thier pet point that they had the information to know was at best very secondary in the circumstances. People who go beyond expressing their disagreement to exert pressure rather than state an argument... etc. All of that still happens. But it never takes over.

Since the 60s I've never had to deal in person with the out of control genered discussion norm. I knew it was out there. And I would guess its extensive in umbrella organizations like the anti-globalization movements [here]. And since the early Seventies I have never been involved in organizations in the big cities [Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal]. Babble gives me some indication you could run into it much more there. But that may be because Babble behaves like an umbrella organization, rather than the lrge propoprtion of frequent babblers who are active in the big cities.

At any rate, my 3 plus years that I've been here have been a re-acquaintance with all those questions about discussion dynamics in general, and the role gendered discussion dynamics plays in that.

It sucks here. And while I know that there are very real problems in that unlike the activist orgaizational practice I use as a comparison:

** there is less commitment to both the babble community/place itself, and to any specific expectations.

** its on-line.

As pervasive as is bad behaviour and sheer callousness in on-line discussions versus face to face, I'm inclined to think that is not a driver. Because I saw all the same crap in the 60s. The on-line aspect makes it harder to do something about it. Talking through and learning to truly respect viewpoints really is harder without face to face..... especially when anyone can jump in at any moment from anywhere to turn progress sideways again. But I dont think the on-line business is one of the top cause of 'the babble dynamic'.

And I think that despite the diversity and limited depth of commitments here on babble, that practicaly speaking it is not too big a group and has within a lot of activist savvy people.... that even with all the obstacles it is within our reach to develop a healthier discussion dynamic here.

I've been on this board for 3+ years. And with a love/hate of it for more than half that at least.

I hate the way the dynamic goes way too often. But I also found how much I missed the broader discussions I lost when I moved nearly 2o years ago to more isolated circumstances.

So I've been thinking about this a long time. Bouts of it when it pisses me off more. But there are so many variables that its hard to puzzle through on your own. And while babble has been a means of collectively puzzling other things I couldnt even get my head around by myself, discussions on this topic have never gone any where near this far before [and I still don't think have got anywhere yet].

One thing I havent been able to puzzle is my contribution to the dynamic I don't like. On a general level thats easy. Ditto for specific things I've done- seen lots of them go by. But on a question like this I don't think youve got anything to grapple with unless you can pick out patterns. And meaningful patterns is more than just something repeating.

Peevish is a frequent reaction for me. And peevish obviously doesnt help the dynamic. But its not a particularly male reaction, in this context. And its typical here for people who are feeling and expressing defensiveness. Putting people on the defensive is what I hate most about this place. So I'm rarely critical even in my own head of people being peevish.

But here is something that I came up with about my peevishness in the course of writing up my background.

A major unwritten but palpable expectation of the gendered discussion dynamic is that I will be heard. One way or another, it always happens.

In the [activist] organizational context like many folks I've learned the adaption that as long as my position or what matters to me gets a hearing, I'm satisfied. And even if it didnt get a hearing, with trust in the process of allocating discussion time, thats the end of it.

But what happens when we dont get the basic respect we agree all of us are entitled to? Which happens all the time on Babble. And in particular, what happens to men when they are then thrown into bumping up against their expectations to be heard?

I dont think its a matter of trying to out-radicalize each other. When that happens it would be stereotypical really egregious gendered beahiour.

But I think the more 'subtle' stuff is the problem. The discussion processes that definitely exist, but you cant point to particular males [or 'persons'' exercising gendered behaviour who likely include some women] who have the primary responsibility for making the discussion like that. [At most, you might be able to point to some who do it the most. But the process of accusation would kill any possibility that you can improve the situation. Especially since it IS a collective process.] 

Its not really subtle at all- the outcomes. But 'who' is doing it is anything but precise.

At any rate, what happens is not out-radicalizing each other. Its a de facto enforcement on the group that what is not radical enough is thoroughly de-legitimized. To the point that rational argument contrary to that is simply drowned out and washed away.

And I think that is firmly rooted in patriarchy. Men are driven to 'win' in discussions. And discussions about politics are still extra suffused with being male. Mix into that a left that is marginal to the lives of most of the population. [And was marginal even 40 years ago when it was ascendant rather than the under seige weve gotten used to being. We werent any better when we werent under seige.]

We are by no means helpless against herding ourselves into male jungle norms of discussion. Far from it: I use the example of organizations we are all in where that is mostly kept in check.

But there is something about these wide open discussions of what needs to be done that those qualities of keeping patriarchy enough in check just fall away, and its the 'law' of the male jungle.

And I dont think the 'wide open' that matters is that anyone can come here with only minimal expectations. Because within a mid-range time scale, the population of babblers who drive these discussions doesn't change that much. So its us regulars that are doing it- whether we've been a regular for a month or for years.

And again, its not the delegitimizing of people who arent radical enough that is the problem. Thats just the manifestation. I do think its enough of a problem by itself to suffiently poison the well. But even I just consider that to be my [contingent] opinion.

Hard to test it though, when no one engages with it except people who agree. And who are all people who have personally felt the lash repeatedly.

Yeah, thats it.

We just have to figure out how to avoid peoples touchy feelings.

Or how about customized little lobotomies for all of the touchy folks.

I mean really, why do people have to be so touchy anyway?