Male Domination of Discussion, part 2

KenS wrote:

And there is still a very limited slice of particpation here. With missing in action, a number of male regulars who dont need illumination to be able to say something.

Okay, so what do I say in this thread?

Being a white male babbler, I can't really comment on the gender dynamics here, which I would be largely oblivious to.  I don't think I've been overtly sexist, treating female babblers any differently than male babblers or anything like that.  I try not to do any of the subtle sexist things in meetings or anything like that, and have on a few occaisions checked with some smart feminist women I know after meetings to see if I'm doing anything wrong or contributing to the patriarchy in any way.  But, I guess writing on forums are a whole different kettle of fish than face to face conversations and meetings.  But, as a male babbler, it's hard to be aware of how the environment affects female babblers in particular.  Not to mention that I think a good portion of male babblers, myself included, would agree that the environment can sometimes be rather shitty in general, so sometimes it might be difficult to distinguish between sexism and the general shitfest that is babble sometimes.  I almost left for good on a few occaisions, once only staying at the encouragement of another babbler (although I'm sure there are some babblers who wouldn't miss me).  That said, I'm not trying to minimize the problem or deny that gender is a part of it if female babblers are pointing out these issues.

My writing style tends to vary depending on my mood, so on a bad day I can be somewhat combative.  And I tend to have a bit of "righteous anger" built up in my posts - I guess it happens when we're talking politics in a world which is so fucked up.

So, what can I do differently?

That was a superb piece, writer. Thanks.

I can't figure out what this thread is about anymore. Is it about whether or not men dominate discussion? 'Cause for me that's a no brainer. Ditto for whether or not we dominate discussion on babble.

Is it about the ways in which we dominate discussion? In the words of high-Hollywood macho man Marlon Brando, "what have you got?"

There are more male babblers than female babblers. There are more male babblers who post than female babblers. Male babblers post more often than most female babblers. Our posts are longer. We post in a more authoritative manner. We are involved in more personal disputes. We are more likely to troll, to insult, to bait and to attack personally. We are more likely to be right.

Or is this discussion about how we can stop that? Because I don't see a lot of that discussion happening. I see attempts to explain why male babblers dominate discussion, but that answer is a no brainer for me too: we live in a patriarchal society. And there is no fragment of that society that can't be co-opted by itself.

So what's happening here?

@ Catchfire

Regarding your post #60.

I don't think there is much that CAN be done in an internet forum in terms of hard rules, aside from respecting threads where men are requested to not post. Really it is more a matter of making people - offenders in particular - aware of the dynamic.

The thread is here, after all, but it not like anyone can be forced to post here.

I think the biggest problems that you mention all come down to ego - combatitiveness, nasty behaviour, and the need to weigh in on everything and not listen to others.

Other things - longer posts, and speaking with authority - are a bit of a red herring, in my opinion. I hear what you are saying, but some things cannot and should not be summed up in a sound byte. If someone doesn't want to read a post we have a technological marvel called a scroll button. And the only problem with speaking with authority (as opposed to arrogance, which again, is driven by ego) is that we all should have enough self-confidence to do so... with the very important caveat that we give others' posts the same respect and consideration that we give our own.

Excellent observation writer...

I just realized the right word for the concept I am trying to explain - empowerment.

It's not a dirty concept when women use it. And nor should it be when men do, so long as we acknowledge the oppression that is on the other side of the equation, and don't simply claim that it is just up to women to shout a bit louder.

Catchfire wrote:

Confidence is a socially constructed and gendered term. I know all sorts of smart women who are confident yet don't talk like they're the only person in the room.

Agreed. But again, that is arrogance as opposed to confidence. And the fact is there are sometimes when someone must speak up even if it is a very uncomfortable and unpopular thing to do.

I don't want to take the focus off of those who are actually oppressing discussion. I'll say again I am not trying to blame the victim, but empowerment is part of the solution.

writer wrote:

I've started a thread about this in the feminism forum for feminist women only, but thought some here might be interested in the piece, too.

[url=http://inciteblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/why-misogynists-make-great-in... Misogynists Make Great Informants: How Gender Violence on the Left Enables State Violence in Radical Movements[/url]

The role of men as allies in this struggle is given little attention in this otherwise excellent article. Having mentioned this, I think it's really a critical duty for male activists to take it upon themselves to make themselves into allies on fighting gender violence and misogyny. This takes effort. But such effort is usually rewarded many times over: in a stronger movement, in better relationships, and, as this article points out, in fewer informants.

It sometimes happens that a turning point can be reached simply by such action. A male colleague tells some misogynist joke, you call him on it, and you thereby make it known that you are more likely to do this in the future. This principle applies not just to gender but also to race, etc..

Morris wrote:

Maybe if organizers made collective accountability around gender violence a central part of our practices we could neutralize people who are working on behalf of the state to undermine our struggles.

I think this is mistaken. There will always be such people. Furthermore, the stronger the movement, we can surmise the greater effort made to harm it. Sometimes the best thing to do with such people as informants and provocateurs is to simply work them - under supervision, of course - very hard.

Morris wrote:

I'm not talking about witch hunts; I'm talking about organizing in such a way that we nip a potential Brandon Darby in the bud before he can hurt more people.

Lenin once used the expression, in a very different context, of "Better Fewer, But Better". Perhaps some people aren't "good enough" to belong to a particular progressive/left organization and simply shouldn't be invited in in the first place. The Communists have, AFAIK, practiced/preached this, for example.

Anyway, a good read and for me was a reminder of popular movements, 20 years ago probably, when issues of gender were no longer put on the back burner and played a front and centre role whichever way a progressive person turned. As it should be. The women's movement, perhaps especially in our own country *, still has plenty to teach. That may be the most important lesson of all.

* I mention the Canadian Women's Movement because of the rich experience and struggle from that movement. This movement has, for example, infused the labour movement in this country and transformed it quite a bit.

[quote=6079_Smith_W]Agreed. But again, that is arrogance as opposed to confidence.[/quote]

Well, no, I don't agree. You are distinguishing between "good" confidence and "bad" confidence when all of us men contribute to the dynamic which drives women away from the conversation. That's how hegemony works--we're all complict in it. In fact, the distinction you draw (they are arrogant, I am confident) is part and parcel with ideology and hegemony: it provides the veil which allows patriarchy to continue apace.

Can I point out that focusing in on semantics rather than broad meaning is incredibly off-putting, and one of the biggest beefs I have with many conversations, particularly with men? 

While I think it is incredibly important to understand how someone is using a word, too often the conversation really becomes about what the use of a particular word says about what someone believes.  In my opinion, we need to give each other the benefit of the doubt a bit more.  It's obvious to me at least that we do not all have a common understanding of the language and terms we use...and at some point we really do just need to take people at face value when they say, "look, I'm sorry, maybe I'm wording it wrong but this is what I'm trying to get across..."

Forcing people to use words in a specifically interpreted way (which may not be how they interpret it) is one way people get  shut down and silenced.

good point yiwah!

Besides all people have different personalities.  Some might very well be arrogant about what they say but that doesn't mean what they say is right/wrong, it just means they're arrogant.  Nor do i think we can blame someone being arrogant for our reluctance to stand up to them.  

Sometimes you need to take a risk and speak out, most of our beliefs carried a death sentence a hundred years ago, but people risked it cause it was necessary.  If we're too "intimidated" to take on someone because we might be ostracized or called names, especially on the internet where it's all anonymous, we're in real trouble. 

Quote:

Sometimes you need to take a risk and speak out, most of our beliefs carried a death sentence a hundred years ago, but people risked it cause it was necessary.  If we're too "intimidated" to take on someone because we might be ostracized or called names, especially on the internet where it's all anonymous, we're in real trouble.

... And so we see the buy-in that women are not participating because they are intimidated. And they are the ones who need to change, not the dynamic that excludes them.

Edited to add: What Yiwah said. Yay, Yiwah!

Who ever said that the dynamic of male domination does not need to change? I think I have spent a good part of this thread and the last saying just the opposite. I also asked once already that my comments about confidence and intimidation not be taken out of context and misinterpreted as being my only point.

It doesn't please me to say it, and I certainly don't support that adversarial dynamic, but I see milo204's point  as well as Yiwah's. There will always be situations in which someone will not be among friends and will be faced with the choice of taking a stand or not. I say that as someone who is sympathetic to the idea of having an inclusive space, but the fact is we will always face those situations - in the outside world, and no matter how much people try to make things inclusive, we will continue to face it here too.

But at the risk of getting really repetitive, I will say again that I think it is of much less importance than challenging the root causes of domination.

And I don't know if others want to hash this secondary point out further, but I was done a few posts ago, and frankly, I regret bringing it up for discussion in the first place.

Yiwah wrote:

If you want to be heard (by us in power, whose listening is sought and valued) then you need to speak up (using our language and paradigms)!  We certainly won't stoop to speaking 'your way' to be heard by you (you aren't in power, your listening isn't sought).

 

Kind of how I see it playing out, like a constant white noise.

How elegantly you have captured that dynamic, thank you Yiwah.

I have been reading along, wondering whether I had anything to contribute. 

Perhaps it will not seem pertinent but I keep thinking about the Tony P. fan club that I and three other women created nearly thirty years ago.  Tony P. was married to a good friend of ours, still is, and he was such a joy to spend time with that we decided we to honour him, thus the fan club, periodically we would get all dolled up and take Tony P. out on the town.  We bought him cigars and chocolates and wine and generally had a blast.  We adored Tony P. because Tony P. liked and  loved women.

I think I have met only a few men in my life that genuinely like and love women, men who are at ease with themselves in such a way that the other, the female, is not seen as a threat but as a companion.  Once this mattered to me but these days I find I am just not so interested in whether men understand the ways in which their need to dominate exclude the possiblity of communication.

I can discern a pattern only from the females I know, but I'd say that males dominate internet discussions because women are too hard-headed and practical to bother with wasting their time arguing with strangers on the interwebs.

al-Qa'bong wrote:

I can discern a pattern only from the females I know, but I'd say that males dominate internet discussions because women are too hard-headed and practical to bother with wasting their time arguing with strangers on the interwebs.

And Asians are good at math, and black people are very athletic.

So called 'positive' stereotypes are damaging too.

N.Beltov, just wanted to thank you for that response.

Strangely enough I have on many occasions on this board presumed that an assertive poster was a male and it turned out I was wrong. [yes I know that says a lot about my mindset]  If we did not self identify our gender I am sure none of us could rightly identify the gender by anonymous posters 100% of the time. I wonder in the context of this discussion whether others have presumed gender from posts and been wrong. 

In real life the gender of the person you are talking to is more often than not observable and thus I believe we all read in our own gender biases to those conversations. For instance Yiwah I thought you were a male at first until you said otherwise in a post so if you thought people at first were reacting to you because of gender then that is not necesarily the case.  

It leads me to the question of how or why should I post in someone else's voice.  I am who I am and I have my own background and culture that is unique to me so my experience is never going to be the same as others here.  In person I have a loud voice (partially cultural and partially deafness) and telling me to speak in a soft voice is the same as me telling a Cree man to speak more assertively.  To each his own.  It is about respect for the others voice.  As long as there is space for all types of people to communicate then that is the important part not that we all have to communicate in some "preferred" way.  It is not whether I have a loud voice but rather whether I am actively and respectfully listening when I am not speaking. Conversations are two sided lectures are one sided.

In the context of this forum I think that many times we all end up typing min-lectures about the issues that mean the most to us.  Mini-lectures are not helpful when typed just as they are not helpful in person.  

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I wonder in the context of this discussion whether others have presumed gender from posts and been wrong. 

Oh, yes. That happens to me every once in a while. As a for example, I thought for some weeks that 6079_Smith was a gril. I think I thought that, even though I know who Winston Smith is, because every time we ended up in a discussion together, Smith and I were in agreement. I have this habit of thinking that anyone who agrees with me is a gril, except for Tommy_P and al-Q. ;)

kropotkin, in an ideal world I would mostly agree with you, but it is observably true that there are fewer women piping up regularly on babble than there are men, and the women (like me) who do pipe up are notable for their verbal assertiveness. Please note: to me, verbal assertiveness signifies nothing more than that one is verbally assertive. It's a curiosity, neutral until put in individual context. In my case, I just like to type a lot. I get nervous if I can't type.

I agree with you that process discussions are kind of frustrating. Me, anyway, I can do them for a bit but then they start to make me dizzy because, it seems to me, when people are talking entirely in the abstract, they start to switch positions. But the basic statistic is still there, as both fact and abstraction: there are notably fewer women babblers than there are men, and all the women are fabulous.

skdadl wrote:

[But the basic statistic is still there, as both fact and abstraction: there are notably fewer women babblers than there are men, and all the women are fabulous.

I agree completely with those two statements of fact.  

My partner has an account but she neither has the time or the general inclination to participate. If she posted she would also be fabulous because she is a seasoned activist and trade unionist with an articulate voice.  But her tone sometimes might be as strident as mine because somethings are supposed to make you angry.  If nothing gets your blood boiling about our society then you can join the conservatives and start hanging out at the right downtown bars trying to make friends.  

While psychology is not my strong suit I believe that reading political opinions on line can trigger a type of flight or fight dynamic.  We never hear from the ones who run.