feminism and chickenshit

I've always had that same reluctance to speak up because I'm afraid I won't be able to hold my own, but I always took that to be due to my intrinsic shyness and not a gender thing. Which isn't to say I disagree with you, Penelope, I just never thought of it that way and now I will. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

It's making me think of something I just posted in another thread, about my political convictions being largely emotionally driven. I think the effect of this is that: a) I feel like I won't fit in if the discussion is intellectual and b) I take is super personally if my views are attacked, since they are so dear to me. (Which also points to my reluctance in online forums, where a faceless debate makes it way easier to be mean. I'm much more of a loudmouth irl.)

I don't know if this is a "woman" thing. I am reluctant to make those generalizations. I've also never actually discussed it, I always figured it was just my quirkiness. I am super-interested in hearing this discussion.

It's funny because that post happens to evoke a memory of someone I know.... This individual is an debate assassin via e-mail, yet is completely withdrawn in social settings. To disagree is to attack.

I find this an interesting topic to say the least. I can't tell you what is right or wrong or what is and isn't. But I can tell you what I have seen first hand in spending far more time than should be legally allowed chatting in this format. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

I have seen many types of discussion rangeing from polite and friendly chatter to deep and philisophical intercourse to all out no holds barred flame wars. I am not sure if gender is an issue more than personality. Also consider the anonimity of the online format and the lines become more and more vague. Some folks can converse on any given topic online yet would never even consider voicing their opinion to a gathering offline. Others go to peices at the slightest hint of confrontation. I seem to remember a line from a movie "the three kings" where an experienced soldier explains to an unseasoned recruit that "You do the thing your afraid of, and then you get the courage." And I think this is true to an extent in this matter. But it could be applied to pretty much any topic of discussion. Experience in this case is a good teacher. The more you participate in online discussions wheather political or otherwise you learn from the discourse. There are all types. Everything you read is opinion. No matter what anyone calls you, you do not become that. It takes two to argue. And above all, don't take it personaly. Honestly those people to encounter online don't know you from Jack and understanding this will help to put into perspective why they are calling you a limp llama.

Now for the finer aspects of debate.

The moment someone hurls a derogitory name at you rather than refuting a point you have made is the moment you know you have won the debate. On the other hand, when you can't think up a good reason why a point is wrong or invalid and feel the need to resort to name calling you should know that your emotions have gotten the better of you and it is time to leave the arena, do some more research and live to fight another day.

Having an open mind is a very good asset. Being wrong only means that you have the oportunity to learn something. Any time you learn something from your mistakes you grow a little more as a person.

Deversify your experience. By that I mean that it is good to have a number of different places you read and post to. Though I am pretty new around here, I have found that it is for the most part a friendly place to chat where the conversation is well monitored and you have some friends around to boost your confidence. I have seen you post to a number of different topics here and to a few of the threads I am involved in as well. You make sense and are passionate about what you talk about. Disagreeing only shows that people are different and see things differently.

Politics is no different that anyother topic. You know what you know and can speack to that with confidence. For the things you don't know, and who knows everything there is to know about anything, you question. The trick is not to know the answers but to have the ability to find them when you know what the questions are. Take heart in the thought that many have ome before you and many more will follow in the steps you take today.

The only thing to fear is fear itself.
Well maybe you should fear the wild tangents I can get into. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Hello Audra,
I support a small board that came about as a fallout shelter from another board that was over run by a flame war. It is pretty much an even split along gender lines with the same peaceful flow to the chat. Covering topics from religion to politics (American) and anything in between. It is not that they are unable to get down right nasty as I have seen and been on the receiving end of it at times.
It is a public board board but rather hiden away. Maybe it's a gender issue, but I wonder if it is just one of those boards like your's at Marigold where no one feels the need or inclination to get nasty about anything. Maybe like a sense of peaceful and friendly community is felt as one begins to read the various threads. Common interest?

I feel the same way penelope does, and I am unsure as to whether it's a gender or confidence thing. I do know that I am not feeling confident enough in my own abilities to defend myself and my views in a political debate, but I don't know if that's just a lack of confidence, or whether it's tied to my being a woman. I think, for me, a large part of my lack of confidence has to do with the fact that I haven't done anything fantastic, and there's tons of people posting here that have experiences that just blow me away.

I guess all I can do is just try to overcome my lack of confidence by venturing forth, and posting anyway.

I actually feel much safer arguing in an online format than "live," because I have the opportunity to read the whole thread of discussion, analyze it a bit, consider a response, write my response, and then revise it as many times as I want to. "recursive writing" at its best.

I also love the fact that:
1. I won't get left behind, because I can always respond to a past remark;
2. no one knows who I am, so they really can't judge "me" (although an online persona can become fragile too); and
3. everyone is speaking at the same volume [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]. We can't be drowned out, as long as we speak.

I'll admit, I was once involved in a flame war on a local BBS in my youth. And you know what? I loved it! It gave me a chance to be really aggressive, and fight tooth and nail with the other guy, without feeling like I had to back down and be "nice". The experience made me much more sure of my online voice.

Penelope, call me ageist but I think fear of hearing one's voice is something we grow out of. Mostly by standing up (sitting down) and being heard (being read).

Everyone is afraid of making an ass of themselves but once you've done it a couple of times and the world doesn't end, you realize that sometimes you're right, sometimes you're wrong but goddammit! at least you're not afraid to say something!

I was reading something today that pointed out many boys learn that losing isn't the end because they play more competitive sports - somebody always has to lose. It may take girls and women a little longer to learn if we don't play competitively but learn it we do.

I don't blame men for this at all. I do think, however, that it is important not to get caught in a kind of trap wherein the way men communicate is viewed as the norm, and the way women communicate viewed as female specific. What I mean by that, is that we all have to be open to change our debate styles to suit the needs of people in a group. If, for example, there was a deaf person present in a discussion, people would have to talk one at a time, to accomodate an interpreter. What I'm trying to say is... well, we all have different needs, right? And if young women are coming into a formerly male-dominated space, there might be a whole bunch of written/unwritten rules in place about the way people interact, that might be contrary to the needs of young women who have been socialized differently. I hate the mentality that expects people to change who they are to suit traditional rules, instead of re-examining traditional rules and adjusting them accordingly. (I'm talking about things like Robert's Rules of order, people, not anti-homicide laws. Don't all jump on me at once.)

Gayle, I started a specific forum called "Everything you always wanted to know about..." which I hoped that people would use to ask questions/seek clarification about issues they didn't know about. I'd love it if everyone used it. Maybe I should have advertised it better. Check it out, though.

Loretta and Penelope, I think I heartily agree with you! I often use what many an english teacher would call a passive voice in discussions like these (though I've learned better than to use it in essays). And I'm not at all convinced that it's inappropriate. Maybe admitting the validity of viewpoints that are not your own is not necessarily a sign of weakness.

Another boy adds his voice - (now there's a shocker). Allors, two anecdotes.

Loretta's comments reminded me of the following: Some time ago I used to attend monthly interagency (NGO) meetings in Ottawa. I played a game. Sometimes I would preface my comments with little provisos like, "in my opinion" or "I'm not sure, but..." or "what if...". Invariably I was ignored. And also, more often than not my point would be reiterated a couple of speakers later with more assertiveness and that person would "win" the credit so to speak. this was my way of testing some feminist analysis of gendered conversational patterns. I learned that despite my maleness, to use speech tactics that were characteristically gender coded as female, I was, as I witnessed with many women, ignored. In the same meeting I would also assert my opinion as fact and be listened to. Sometimes I felt like I was a yo-yo. But it was a powerful way to witness the not-so-subtleties of sexism in the social justice world that I was a part of. Admittedly, the mere tip of the iceberg of mysogyny in our social ocean.

A few years ago I was trying to get down to finishing a masters paper. For days I sat blankly in front of my laptop. One day I cried. Gathering myself, I examined the anguish that seized my chest. I felt I had nothing of value to say. This from a guy who regularly gets accused of being an arrogant know-it-all. I was absolutely stunned at the power of this emotion. I felt like I had one of those ridiculous Monty Python hands-from-the-clouds whacking me in the head. Where on earth did this feeling of despair come from? I knew it was deep. Well, to spare you the predictable turn into psychoanalysis, I realized that that feel of worthlessness with respect to writing had deep roots - family and community and class and gender and race and so on - the usual constellation of interlocking oppressions (I love mixed metaphors). It was reading feminist analyses like Anne-Louise Brookes' "Feminist Pedagogy: An Autobiographical Approach" (Fernwood, ‘92) that showed me some of the complexity of how our authorial voices are so warped by the ubiquitous violence of our society.

I'm not making the facile point that men are victims too. While this may be true in a broad philosophical way (ie we're all dehumanised by violence against women), overall men benefit materially while women die daily, as we know. Rather, I guess I am trying to reflect on the power of sexism not only to perpetuate violence against women but also to silence men while simultaneously offering men a host of privileges to buy into. I benefit from these privileges every day. Even while being in solidarity with women. I am hopeful that this bbs will be a space where we can engage in different processes of dialogue. And I recognise the courage of all those who post here despite fear.

Today most men are afraid of expressing an independent point of view...

They'll parrot some group opinion and repeat whatever dogma their professors make them read from the textbooks, but I don't think it's the same. Men as equally as women will begin a rebuttal with "It's a well-known fact that...", or "Everyone holds it to be true that...", or "Studies have proven that".

Have we not reached a mid-point yet?

Loretta, I agree with your suggestion that "speech tactics "characterisically coded as female" tend to foster consensus and inclusiveness, whereas the more assertive style of participating in a group could lend itself to polarization within the group and alienation of some of the less powerful participants." This is certainly my experience of working in groups. Much of my work has to do with facilitating consensus situations and I have learned to wield the power of provisos to create democratic space for dialogue (of course there's more to it than that - "I" statements can be effective as well). Also I find it's worth recognizing the nature of the situation of dialogue/discourse we find ourselves in. Many situations are, unfortunately, still ruled by patriarchal "win-lose" practices. If we do find ourselves in the midst of such, then we have a choice to play along, play tricks, be critical or simply defy. While women can choose to assert "opinion as fact" (and this would work in many cases) I suspect that as far as a mere speech tactic is concerned men would still benefit more. Resistance to sexism and mysogyny has got to go further than speech tactics.

One of my interests is how women and men (and also the young, old, transgendered and so on) can act in solidarity to engage in discourse that is democratic, that is about the creation of consensus, that doesn't shy away from disagreements, that demands of us to put our passionate hearts into the debate while remaining open to being persuaded to new points of view.

Like others have expressed here, I too carry fears about posting my thoughts here. I most times feel like the words I place here have been peeled from my flesh and I have to work hard not to take criticism personally. My hope in this place is that, on balance, this will be a place of compassionate exchange.

(PS: Loretta, are you mocking me with "Storyboy" (not that there's anything wrong with that) or have you genuinely misread my handle?) [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

Oh no! I'm sorry, Storyfool - no mockery intended. Please chalk it up to my being a busy and distracted mother of four with the newest being 3 1/2 months old. Also, your last posting was very thought provoking ... I'll ponder it some before I leap into a response this time.

It's ironic that I should commit an act of outright stupidity while discussing this subject matter...

quote:

---

No, most Australians are just yobbos :Ю

---

As are, to be fair, most Americans.

I agree with you that it can be a shyness issue but I also tend to think that many women are reticent to participate in a group where there are men present however, those same women participate freely in a women-only forum. However, some of that can be explained, at least for me, by the fact that the forums are very different (women's group in a circle, other groups forward facing, etc.)

What have been other women's observations?

I've never posted in a women's only forum. However, I think I tend to be more active here then I have been at Marigold, which is a feminist site. I'm really not sure why. At any rate, discussions on the internet are all faceless, and sometimes I feel like they're genderless as well. Mostly because I have to guess at many people's gender (or I could check the bios, but that would be too easy...)

But you're right, it does depend on the tone of the discussion. The more open-minded it is, the happier I am to share my ideas. And I do think men have a tendancy to be more aggressive in their opinions then women, though many men and women are exceptions to that.

I like this thread. I am re-animating it.

The how do you explain Ann Coulter? Uh oh, I'm the one who argued in another thread that we're paying to much attention to her. Shame on me.

I'm probably going to get in trouble here, but let me put forth a suggestion. I think women, with numerous notable exceptions on this site, tend to have difficulty separating the political from the personal. In other words, men can say to each other in a political argument, "you're full of shit" or, "fuck off," things of that nature, without taking it personally. Women tend to react differently. I know in a political argument I had with wife last year, I said, "that's stupid," which she took to mean that I had called her stupid.

All right. Let the brick throwing begin.

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: josh ]

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: josh ]

It is much better when someone says you are full of shit than stupid.

Stupid is stupid, just like dumb. A no-no.

quote:

---

Is this a gender thing, a confidence thing?

---

Neither: it's a perspective thing.
Why do you care so much?
It's only talk, ferchrissake!
Let's do that again, bigger, for emphasis.
[b]IT'S ONLY TALK![/b]

If somebody doesn't like your persona on a forum, what happens? If somebody disagrees with your opinion, what happens? If somebody thinks you're misinformed, ignorant, a moron, a Mormon, a maroon, stupid, full of shit, a nasty commie, a wimp, a boor, an enslaver of mankind... what happens?
Absolutely nothing.

I've heard (well, not heard - seen, read) people say things like "They crucified hem for expressing that opinion." In fact, they did no such thing: they made some rude remarks, is all. Not a scratch on the victim. It's like saying, "S/he has to fight traffic three hours a day." One doesn't fight traffic; one merely sits, in safety and comfort, and is bored - maybe not even that, given radio, tape-deck and cell-phone.
Hyperbole. We tend to take hyperbole far too seriously.

Step back a pace, put it in perspective.
It doesn't fuggin' matter!

In what way, josh?
I've only known two American women well enough to talk politics with. One was from Chicago, quite well educated. She had no hesitation, no shyness at all in expressing fairly extreme opinions. She wasn't all that good at listening, but would, if one insisted. The other was from a southern state - Georgia, i think. She was slow and careful in putting an opinion forward, but totally adamnat, once she had - wouldn't listen at all. It's a negligible sample to draw any conclusions from, so i'd be interested in someone else's observations.