babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Men's involvement with feminism
August 27, 2008 - 11:13am
If you can stand hearing me for that long (45 min., songs included), I would love Babbler feedback on the ideas and realities discussed.
Thanxxx
[ 27 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
And dulcet tones indeed! You're a great speaker, martin. I will be back with more comments when I hear the rest.
But as an aside to speaking about men's involvement with feminism, or even with things pertaining to women, I would say that the world is still so men focused that it can't happen to any great extent, yet.
For example, a scientific report was released this week on a study done on diverticulitis. The study was conducted on 40,000 men, covering a 18 year period. However, the report had to say that as only men were studied, they do not know if their finding would hold true for women.
So, in a study with the significant size of 40k, they could not even make half, or a quarter, of them, women. Moreover, it was started in the early 90's, long after the heath care oriented scientific community knew that there were significant differences between the genders, and that scientific studies on just men, could not be applied to women, to any great extent.
[ 27 August 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
I totally agree about the generally "men-focussed" character of investigation, analysis, discourse... Imagine if those scientists had decided to purposefully shut out of their study POCs and FNs and yet presented their results as applying to all...
It even happens around gender issues. When I am asked to speak about men's involvement with feminism, I ask that there also be as guest who is a front-line feminist organizer, in order to have her own POV about issues such as male bejaviour in mixed groups, (un)accountability, resistance to feminism, what type of men do right, etc.
The F Word producers decided to provide that themselves in our conversation, and it worked out fine.
[ 27 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Unless I'm mistaken, which has been known to happen.
Anyhow, I like it, so it'll be a good backdrop to working. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] Looking forward to hearing you, Martin!
It won't take 3 days, though! It's only a 29 MB zipped file. I estimate 3-5 hours with a clean dial-up connection, and you can still babble simultaneously.
In a general sense, all internet activity involves downloading including viewing this page. But in this context there are differences. When you stream an audio or video file, you need to have enough bandwidth so that the file plays properly, i.e. so that the data comes in quickly enough to simulate "real-time". Try looking at a YouTube video on a dial-up connection to see what I mean. If it plays at all, it isn't worth watching. But if you want to download that zip file, your download speed doesn't matter as long you're prepared to allow the download to complete. (So let it download overnight?)
Of course another difference is that if you download the file and then play it from your local hard drive, you can play it repeatedly without going back to the source.
Gotta run. The drift police should be along to pick me up any moment now.
Ouch. Is that because of the phone line where you are, or the modem, or what?
By the way, martin is quite hard to hear compared to the interviewer - less than half the volume I'd say - so I'll try later on too when I can crank it up.
Meanwhile, maybe I'll just crank martin up... [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 28 August 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
Ironically, the interview was an example of one of the points that Martin made about men dominating conversations among feminist women. Not that Martin intended that to happen; it's just that he was the interview subject, had a lot to say, and expressed himself well, while the women listened to him and (almost audibly) nodded their heads in agreement.
Is this necessarily a bad thing?
It could conceivably have been a very different kind of conversation had the women chosen to make it so. They could have brought more of their own thoughts and observations to the table, and maybe even challenged or probed Martin and each other a little more. In this case, they seemed to do the stereotypical feminine thing and deflect differences and avoid confronting them.
If it were a conversation in somebody's living room instead of a long-distance telephone interview, would Martin have been better advised to shut up and listen to the women?
I ask this because it is often stated as Rule No. 1 that men have nothing to teach women about feminism and they should shut up and listen and never disagree. I think it would be a shame if Martin followed that rule consistently.
I think women have some responsibility in this regard. If they don't want others - be they men or women - to take over the conversation then they had better come prepared to articulate their own well-considered positions and to challenge the positions articulated by those others.
It's trite to say, but we have much to learn from each other.
Did anyone else find this to be the case?
Yikes!!
You can bypass dial-up lines by using a satellite internet service (there are several choices to select from here in the USA—so I’m assuming that satellite internet service is also available in Canada). All you need is electricity—so it’s perfect for non-urban areas.
I use satellite at our place in northern Minnesota where our only utilities are electricity and phone service (no gas, cable, DSL, sewer, etc.). The satellite service we use (“WildBlue”) is fantastic (it’s many times faster than DSL and highly reliable).
While they may have been giggly at times, just at the beginning, the questions and intros to them were quite helpful. I think much of the laughter was due to Martin's sharp wit.
I will have to listen to it again as it was very hard to keep up because they tackled a number of subjects with respect to men.
I had some quibbles but they're very trivial to Martin's message, considering the excellent learning experience. Recommended listening for men that would like to talk to feminists.
Skip to 10 minutes in if you want to get right to Martin.
Nice work Martin.
Is this true? That 'Rule No. 1' is 'men have nothing to teach women about feminism'? I can't recall ever hearing this on babble, and if I had, I think it would be a minority opinion. What I have heard is that most men have deep-seated entitlement that makes them much more likely to state their opinions with confidence and surety. So when feminist opinions are offered by men, valid or not, and conflict with those of women, it reproduces the entrenched patriarchal power dynamic feminism seeks to unravel. It's a problem to deal with more than a hard-and-fast rule. Martin and other men have given their opinion in the feminist forum with excellent and enlightening results, I'd reckon. What's important is not thinking that you have nothing to offer, but to enter such a discussion aware of the dominant oppressive political dynamic, and remain self-reflexive, cautious and respectful of feminism's larger aims. Less swagger, entitlement and assumption and more readiness to learn, or an expectation to have our social assumptions uncovered and eradicated.
As for the unprofessionalism, or whatever, of the radio hosts, they sounded typical of college or community radio shows which don't have the same bravado-tinged confidence (not always a bad thing) of experienced public or corporate radio presenters. Martin came across as an experienced activist who knows his political philosophy and is used to explaining it to people. Hence the disparity.
[ 29 August 2008: Message edited by: Catchfire ]
I also have never listened to this show before, and I haven't heard how the hosts interact with other guests. And the point I made earlier, that there's such great happiness that men are on board the project that there's a giddiness perhaps.
Plus the community radio aspect, which makes me more forgiving towards the hosts. I have some very brief experiences being both interviewer and interviewee, over the phone, live to radio, and it's given me greater respect for both positions in the "thinking on your feet" way and also "being articulate and to the point".
Bravo to Martin and the women form F-word!
When M.Spector writes "it is often stated as Rule No. 1 that men have nothing to teach women about feminism and they should shut up and listen and never disagree. I think it would be a shame if Martin followed that rule consistently," I am of two minds.
I think it is a strawman to the extent that I have not heard women take such an intolerant stand, and I feel he is putting words in their mouths.
OTOH, 1) I actually don't think that I or men have anything to "teach women about feminism." We may be helpful by sharing stuff about masculinity and our lives that men rarely volunteer - as I tried to do during the program - but "teaching feminism"... hello?...;
2) It seems to me we should acknowledge - as women do - that men, as a class, DO disagree with feminist analysis and say/do as much as they can to sidetrack it. This seems much more accurate and useful than to present men as a silenced bunch or a group of misconstrued allies, as I feel M.Spector does implicitly.
Indeed, feminists such as Phyllis Chesler, Barbara Ehrenreich, Susan Faludi, Kate Millett, Andrea Dworkin, Pierrette Bouchard and Christine Delphy - among others - have taught us all a lot by taking men at their word(s).
As for "shutting up," I do learn a lot - and love it - when I manage to listen more than I talk in a conversations with feminists; it just wasn't my mandate last Saturday. (But I'll be listening tomorrow!)
[ 29 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
What's the difference between the 29, the 30 and the 57 MB file?
There's fast internet here so I'm just downloading the 57, is that everything?
[ 29 August 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
[ 29 August 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]