I have talked with some extremely progressive men and have worked along side of them. I do not understand their lack of gender analysis, given the fact that they are able to adopt excellent race analysis, etc…
It is, to me, like they are afraid to examine sexism/misogyny because it would force them to examine their own privilege.
I find this to be true with many men be they straight, gay, white, black, etc…
It’s fortunatel that you qualified your statement with “many” because I’m certain you don’t mean “all”. Lack of empathy, I’d guess.
Could you provide an example/cite?
I, unfortunately, have no clue what “gender analysis” entails.
Is this similar to the feminist critique of IR?
I’m confused.
Are you asking “Why don’t they agree with me?”. You seem to be assuming that you are right and they are wrong. In such cases, it often turns out just the opposite.
Why is it that even conservative women so often see sexism/misogyny that isn’t there?
I find this to be true with many men be they straight, gay, white, black, etc…
Sua
[sub]well, it makes just about as much sense as the OP[/sub]
So with the complete lack of attempt to answer my question in any real way that promotes understanding, each of you prove my point.
What I mean about a gender analysis, Soup_du_jour, is an analysis of power/privilege that includes gender. Who has the power and why? Who decides how the system is run and who goes unheard.
An example would be that recently there was a G8 demonstration where I live. I was part of organizing a lot of it. The vast majority of organizers, speakers, etc…were men. When they were confronted by this they refused to look at how they were promoting men and were not including women in the process.
I’m kinda waiting for an example, too. In a recent Pit thread about gender generalizations or something, I threw in “Only a woman would start a thread like this.” I was obviously being my usual hysterical self, but I can see why making a statement like this could let some people think I was denying sexism, or practicing it myself.
In any case, all you have a fairly vague complaint about an undefined group of men, with no examples given and no apparant thought given to the idea that at least some of these men may be making statements that you are misinterpreting.
And I examine my own privilege all the time. Usually in the shower.
Dunno…maybe men are better at throwing rocks?
So people saying that you’re mistaken in the assertion of your OP proves your point?
I, myself, wonder why so few people are able to admit to my brilliance, raw talent, and rugged good looks. Anybody who claims that I don’t possess those traits will simply be reaffirming that they’re in denial.
My personal experience is that most men admit that women have been discriminated against in the past, and while the practice still occurs today, it is much more uncommon, and certainly not a widespread epidemic. Meanwhile, many women (though thankfully they’re in a minority) continue to claim that men, as a whole, are a mysoginistic and oppressive bunch, and those who deny that they’re woman-haters are simply part of the problem.
Society has made tremendous leaps in both gender- and race-relations, and denying that does nobody any good. Regarding your specific example of the G8 demonstrations, did you present evidence of discrimination to these men above and beyond that the “vast majority” of them were men? Were you willing to explore the possibility that perhaps the lopsided distribution among the participants was due to factors that had nothing to do with willful (or subconscious) favoritism? A common misconception is that inequality of results is the same thing as inequality of opportunity.
Jeff
You have the brass ovaries to post this after slapping up one of the most disjoint and poorly articulated OPs in recent memory. If you want people to give you well defined, substantantive responses you need to have a thoughtful, well defined OP. If this is the way your typical thought process works it’s no wonder you are
I wonder why even many progressive women seem unable to acknowledge misandry.
Deborah, you’re on the BEST discussion board on the Internet. These are smart folks. Trust me; the problem is that we didn’t understand what your point is. You have to define your terms. You’re claiming, as near as I can understand it, that “progressive men” seem unable to engage in “Gender analysis.” Those are absurdly broad descriptions that say next to nothing.
Now that youve provided an example of what you’re talking about, we might get somewhere.
Well, in that specific instance there might have been a thousand different reasons. Who confronted “them” about this?
But as to your general observation, I think it’s folly to believe that just because someone agrees with you about the G8, they can’t be sexists, racists, or just plain jerks.
Your question - “Why are progressive men likely to deny sexism?” - implies a contradiction, that it makes no sense for a progressive man to not be sensitive to sexism. That seems to be your basic point; that it’s hypocritical for a “progressive” man to not see the sexism you see, and not be sensitive to things like the apparent male domination of G8 demonstration events.
But the problem with this is that you are implicitly begging the question. You seem to be defining “progressive men” as being “men who happen to agree with political views I agree with” - e.g. globalization, or maybe something else. So you’re stating, in essence, that it is amazing that a person opposed to globalization could also be a sexist.
Well, guess what; your definition of “progressive” is, I am afraid, out to lunch. On one hand you appear to be defining “progressive” as meaning “someone who agrees with me,” because in the example you referred to, the G8 summit, you were ASSUMING a man who agreed with you about G8 issues was a “progressive.” But on the other hand you’re confused they didn’t see things your way about sexism.
Why would you think men who went to G8 demonstrations would necessarily be attuned to what you perceive as being the progressive opinion in feminism? Hoo, boy, are you in for some disappointment. You can’t assume everyone who agrees with you on Issue A necessarily agrees, or even understands, Issue B, or is even the sort of person you’d allow into your house. The simple fact is that a lot of men who support the issues you support on globalization, and possibly a hundred other things, are sexist jerks. Many are not, but some are. Many men who do NOT support your opinions on some political issues are NOT sexist jerks, and some are. You say on one hand these are “Extremely progressive men,” which I have to admit sounds like a description from an anthropology textbook - but then on the other hand you’re saying they AREN’T progressive with respect to issues of gender. So are they “progressive,” or aren’t they, or can people maybe be “progressive” about some things and not others?
(And what are you defining as being “progressive”?)
If you took this conclusory approach when you “confronted” the male speakers and organizers about the purported lack of female involvement in the “process,” no wonder you didn’t get the response you wanted.
People don’t respond well to assholishness, regardless of the gender of the speaker.
Sua
How many more men than women volunteered their time and had the resources to fully participate in organizing this large G8 demonstration?
If droves of women didn’t volunteer to fill these roles, is it the fault of male sexism/misogyny?
I think deborah is hiding behind staid academic terminology like “patriarchy” and “gender analysis” to hide assumptions and woolly thinking.
Perhaps if she could tell us which feminist thinker’s critique of the patriarchy and whose tools of gender analysis she privileges, we might actually go somewhere.
Sometimes it might be because the analysis will not yield a meaningful answer given the specific situation.
There is no enemy. Anywhere.
Deborah, I hate to break it to you, but I possess a set of ovaries and a uterus, yet I still haven’t a blessed clue what the point you were trying to make in the OP was. I haven’t a clue what the hell G8 is either.
Perhaps instead of alluding to posters being deliberately obtuse because they’re men, you could try to make a coherent post first, then criticize their deliberate lack of understanding.
elf; the G8 is a loose economic alliance of eight developed capitalist countries. It used to be G7 and they were basically formed as a capitalist bulwark against the Soviets, but since the collapse of the USSR, that mission has evolved and Russia joined up, ironically.
The membership is America, Japan, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Russia.
They hold periodic summits where they yap about economics and whatnot, and inevitably a horde of antiglobalist protestors show up and make nuisances of themselves. A recent conference in the isolated town of Kananaskis, Alberta sent the protestors into hysterics, since the isolated venue was clearly chosen to exclude them.
The pont the op is making, I think, is why are some of these passionate antiglobalist protestors who one would assume are all touchy-feely and caring and loving and concerned for their fellow man such jerks?
But that’s the problem… they’re concerned only for their fellow man.
