They were probably busy staring at your boobs.
d&r
Regards,
Shodan
Add me to those requiring a little more clarification and a little less confrontation on what is “gender analysis” and “progressive” in the OP context. BTW, deborah183, this Board is “Smart Alecks 'R Us” And some of the biggest smart-alecks are the women, who give as good as they take. So strap on the pads and helmet and enjoy!.
Just from the provided clues: one possibility is that if people stopped to do a “______ analysis” on every single possible issue (race, religion, gender, class, nationality, age, height, weight, animal exploitation, environment, etc., etc.) so that the result is unimpeachable from any angle, they’d never get anything done. So, many of us humans just plain skip over a couple of those analyses to get to our immediate goal – deborah183 just noticed that “gender” analysis was one of those “skips”.
Another possible scenario is these men who upon being advised they are missing “gender analysis” become uncomfortable and defensive, had falsely bought into the same idea that “Progressive” is an all-or-nothing proposition with a specific ideological catechism and now feel threatened in their worldview because they failed to heed it 100%. Well, I got news for ya, ideological catechisms are ANTIprogressive. You gotta make up your mind on each issue and sometimes you will be wrong. I feel I am probably “progressive” on a some issues, but not on everything, and even then there are some in which I prefer a slow-but-steady vs. a radical approach to progress. And there is a high chance I may be wrong on a lot of those issues.
If (as in the example) you’re protesting the economic disparity between rich and poor nations and the effects of neoliberalism on labour and the trade balance, is it really relevant to the point being made, whether or not you have an exact split of 50/50 Male-to-Female and 90/10 Het-to-Gay speakers and organizers? And would it be in any way surprising to anyone who has spent more than a few days out in the cold cruel world, if among the organizers there are people who really don’t care about gender issues?
As to “examining my own privileges”, I am quite conscious of my ability to not think twice when I step out and walk across the parking lot to my car late at night, and the fact that when shopping for a car or for electronics the salesthing listens to what I tell him/her I want. OTOH my single-and-childless-at-41 status leads some people to ignorant presumptions about my own gender issues that could result in my being indirectly victimized by others’ bias if I ever seek a position of high responsibility. So yes, I do “gender analysis”. Just that most often it’s irrelevant to the situation.
deborah183, it sounds like you are applying a theory to the context of its own defense.
This article has some very good insights about this action.
To respond to your criticism, I believe that there is a common misconception that equality of opportunity automatically entails equality of outcome. Also, have you thought about the possibility that you might be wrong in your analysis?
So, I’ll bet you’re one of those “Don’t call me a chick” chicks,
aren’t ya?
-Bubba
Basically, you are going unheard because you seem to not have a damn thing to say. Speak up or f*** off.
Articulate writing is a tool of the patriarchy.
Thank you. A bit of context makes a world of difference to the audience’s understanding.
Because race is not an issue. Everybody knows that females are attracted to ‘jerks’; in spite of what they say. To make them smile, you need to lie and be deceptive; pretend to have confidence in a means which suggests no confidence. I don’t think it’s a far cry, socially, perceptually to state that males in general think females are dumb and that many females have difficulty validating themselves when they mature cognitively. Guys are used to acting this way so that you’ll be attracted to them; compelled by them.
-Justhink
Cause they are such wussies about being liberals that they have to call themselves progressives?
I am not a progressive. A progressive is someone who either likes the awful progressive rock of the late seventies or early eighties (Asia, Rush (one or two tolerable songs)) or a Henry Wallace style socialist of the “Progressive” party. Progressing to what, I might ask? Communism?
I’m a New Deal, FDR kind of Liberal, and I like being called a liberal, because that is what I am. And some conservative starts using liberal like an insult, I loudly announce that I’m a liberal, it isn’t either immoral or a crime, and if he doesn’t like it, he can step outside. I rather huge, so I only get taken up on it about one in twenty times. And then I only get the worst of it about a third of the time. I’ve yet to regret it.
I’m not sure exactly what has gone on here. A new user has asked a question and provoked quite a lot of responses indicating that other people don’t like the question. The responses seem pretty extreme. It’s hard to believe this is one of the most disjoint (which, to my my surprise, is an adjective, albeit an obsolete one [Random House, rev.]) post in anybody’s recent memory.
To me it is a pretty reasonable question, one obviously formed by someone schooled in feminist thought. This may or may not be a bad thing. Is it poorly written? I had no trouble understanding it - at least I think I understand it - but it obviously doesn’t please some people.
Allow me to rephrase the OP. If I’ve summed her up incorrectly, deborah183 should feel free to set me straight (if she’s still around, and let me assure you that if I got the same reponse to my first post on this board I would not still be around). Here goes:
*Modern ideas about social justice usually include the idea that any peculiar economic or social benefits which accrue to someone, merely because of an accident of their birth - what Rawls calls the “natural lottery” IIRC - are ill-gotten. A situation in which someone loses out in society because of the inherited demographics is an unfair situation, and one worthy of a social remedy.
Progressives are people who have taken it upon themselves to identify and remedy social injustices. Progressives detest racism, homophobia, religious discrminiation, poor education which robs poor children of economic opportunity, and countless others, yet in my* experience, when those progressives are males, they never seem to acknowledge, much less fight to end, sex discrimination. This is an unfortunate omission, and I can’t explain it. Can you?*
*Keep in mind this is Boris’ “hypothetical deborah” talking
I honestly don’t know if this helps any. Maybe this will be as offensive to as many SDMB members as the OP was. Maybe it will be as incomprehensible.
In any case it is not my experience at all - the progressive males I know acknowledge and deplore sexism as quickly as they do other social injustices. Naturally I don’t have a big sample size; most people I know are apolitical and apathetic. There are very few “complete progressives” - people who truly consider all forms of social injustice to be worth fighting. If I were a complete progressive I wouldn’t laugh at redneck jokes.
I’ll try to answer deborah183’s question anyway, because I’ve heard it asked before and I think it’s worth answering.
If they are like me, progressive men avoid talking about their concern for women’s issues around strangers. Why? They do not want to be told they don’t exist. “There are no sensitive men, just guys who fake it!” is the cry, and it can be strangely hurtful.
We’re used to being told that our concern for gay rights means we’re homosexual. Yeahwhateva. We’re used to hearing that conern about racial equality is “bleeding heart liberalism” and that we are just patronizing white people trying to prove we’re better than somebody. Sure. But the mantra of the chauvinist - that he is the only type of male, somehow leaves us mute. For some reason - I think it is a 90s cliche - the most effective attack can be to deny the very existence of your debating opponent.
From the other extreme we get the charge that we will never be able to understand the experience of someone of a different demographic group, so why bother. Ah yes - the “it’s impossible for you to empathize with someone who is actually oppressed” argument. If you’re a white male heterosexual progressive, you’re pretty useless from this perspective. How do we answer this argument? I answer, usually, with silence. Why should I answer someone who is so totally and proudly uninterested in my response?
To the chauvinist I am a liar, a fraud who is only out for cheap sex (mostly with feminists, one must suppose?). To the separatist I am an empathy dud, a fortunate son permanently cut off from all real experience by unbridgeable gulfs in demography. Why the opinions of these two archetypes matter to me is another question, but like I said, I’m perfectly happy to talk about my concern over the status of women with a narrow group of people that I trust (or in a more or less anonymous bulletin board setting).
Either that, or they just wanted to get home in time to catch the football game.
you know, reading this at 2:45 am its very very easy to get a couple words mixed up just a little bit, something about the women giveing as good as they get and strap ons.
its also to late for me to contribute much (or I am still sober enough to know I shouldn’t post while on niquil)
And you see sexism here…how? If you think that there aren’t enough women organizers in the demonstration, GO RECRUIT SOME. If you think there should be more female speakers, GO FIND SOME that are at least as good as the current male speakers. The most likely explanation for the skewed gender representation is that FEWER WOMEN WANTED TO DO IT. In the absence of any evidence of discrimination, you have no argument. Inventing discrimination where none exists helps no one, least of all your cause.
hypothetical deborah183 and the original version have still failed to provide any concrete examples of what (s)he thinks are sexism among Progressive Men or denial of said attitude.
For instance, what exactly did the G8 protestors do to exclude women from their ranks and/or positions of power in the protest hierarchy? Hold secret meetings? Beat their chests while making hooting noises?
That might be worthy fodder for a debate.
Without concrete and specific examples, not completely, but one possible explanation is that sex discrimination is not always occurring when progressive women complain about it.
Other explanations include all the possible answers to the question “Why don’t people agree with me?” Maybe they don’t want to suffer paralysis by analysis, as other posters have mentioned. Maybe because they are stubborn. Maybe you are stubborn.
Or maybe one side or the other is behaving like an asshole when s/he doesn’t get to run things.
And blowero - they don’t watch football, they watch soccer, and only women’s soccer at that. They are hoping Mia Hamm takes off her jersey again.
Regards,
Shodan
Whether the responses to the OP are correct or not (and they seem broadly sound to me), I agree with Boris B that many of them have been a shameful example of how not to respond to a newbie’s first post.
Stand-out bad example:
kniz posts: 2700+
Basically, you are going unheard because you seem to not have a damn thing to say. Speak up or f** off.*
It should be obvious by now calling for further explanation of the OP from deborah183 is unlikely to get a reply. She’s probably too shell-shocked. So much for the fight against ignorance.
Deborah, I’d encourage you to come back and elaborate, and pay no attention to the insults. I do think you’re in danger of attacking groups of people rather than attacking ideas, which puts you on shaky debate grounds. But I’d like to see an elaboration.
daniel
Well, like Boris B I was able to discern a debateable proposition from the OP, though I certainly agree with those who stated that it was not very well formed. Actually, I can see at least 3 ways in which the OP might be discussed:
Deborah has had subjjective experiences of men she considers progressive being blind to sexism/misogyny. Do others agree with her assessment of those experiences?
Deborah has had subjjective experiences of men she considers progressive being blind to sexism/misogyny. Have others also noted this?
Deborah has had subjjective experiences of men she considers progressive being blind to sexism/misogyny. Assuming these experiences are representative of a larger trend, what might be the reason for that correlation.
These three are not, of course, mutually exclusive. For myself, I do not think the single example offered is sufficiently developed to indicate either sexism or misogyny on the part of the protest organizers, though Deborah’s perceptions might have been accurate. However, as a general human trait I have often observed that people can be blind to their own prejudices. This applies as well to progressive men as to any other political subgroup. Which leads, of course, to my explanation for the correlation (if it exists) as – because they are human beings. Political beliefs are not a guarantee of ultimate self-awareness, and millenia old social patterns leave tracks which are not always easy to see, especially when the ground is obscured by demonstrable population differences in physical capcities and behavioral tendencies.
Hey, this ain’t no namby-pamby knitting circle.
Nor are we required to develop an OP’s disjointed observations into a cogent and debatable proposition. While this thread’s responses constitute perhaps a harsh welcome to the world of GD, it’s also an extremely accurate and truthful welcome.
- Rick
Cite?
Regards,
Shodan