i'm sure i take the risk of being booted off the list. the reasons for that would be incomprehensible to me, were i strictly using logic. thinking politically, of course, it would be quite easy to see why i will likely be booted despite the fact that i am doing nothing here that is different from what yoshie regularly did last month ago: forward a debate
from other lists.
context: i tried to point out to charles that i think his treatment of women on lbo is condescending and i think sexist. i agree that it may well be that charles is not so at m-fem or elsewhere. that's fine. but i do believe that sometimes men can be more sexist in certain forums, and i suspect that lbo is one of those forums whereas, clearly, m-fem is not. i
pointed this out in a decent enough way. i was then ignored. when i became concerned that dismissing my concerns in this was was, itself, sexist and exemplary of being a 'big dick" i was ridiculed and my charged was greeted with denial. that is the sexism at issue here: responding to the concerns by ignoring them, by ridiculing them and by denying them.
finally, perhaps you don't like my language or modes of expression. but please step back and ask yourself what kind of gendered eyeglasses you're sporting if so. to what extent are claims that someone is not being polite or proper in one's use of language sexist/racist/classist doug writes:
>C'mon, that's not fair. Charles does not act like a big swinging
>dick. This is a bit over the top.
hmmm...no..you're right. and that's not what the comment meant. more on the order of, thanks for proving what a dick you are with regard to this issue. now, i think i should be allowed to point out when chaz is being a dick, just as eric is allowed, just as joe noonan is allowed, just as angela is allowed. futhermore, it is not that i think charles was acting like a he-man, but that he was acting like a know-it-all. this is not the first time this concern has been raised. indeed, angela referenced the incident of a month or so ago when charles declared that he was self-assured of his correctness, rightness in any and all positions he took
i think treating my concerns and serious question frivilously is being a dick and being a big dick at that. [chuck was dicky to me the other day too. and chuck's dickiness was sexist too because he proceeded to infantalize me in response]. i'm not the first to point this out and, indeed, chaz isn't the only person on this list to act like a dick--most of us do at some point or another and most of us have it pointed out to us in some fashion or another by being called an asshole or whathaveyou. that would be the subject of human interaction 101.
furthermore, the comment has a history and it refers to my first interaction with charles in which i referred to the game of "more marxist than thou" as "who's got a bigger hard on for marx' chaz was a bit taken aback by that comment and has since teased me about it. [an aside: as i've pointed out here and on m-fem: there is something interesting about the fact that marxist tend to engage in the game of more marxist or a better marxist than thou, whereas feminist tend not to or, at least, they don't revert to the sacred texts in order to do so. i would, some day, like to explore this contention both as to whether i'm accurate in my assessment of feminist debate and, if so, why it is that marxists revert to the sacred texts so quickly]
i was trying to keep this on a lighthearted plane to begin with. it is NOT easy, doug, to bring up such an issue and, generally, the best strategy i have is humor. firstly, it's not easy because, as a social institution, this list is shot through with sexist practices. it may be, comparatively, a better space than, say, the local pub or a board meeting at corporation bigname, but that does not mean that this list is free of sexist practices.
and, on a micro level, it's not easy because bringing up such topics doesn't exactly win friends and influence people. and that is, in and of itself, sexism in operation is it not? when men resent women--and indeed when women, themselves, resent other women for bringing up sexism-- this is part and parcel of the system of gender oppression. similarly, it is racist and heterosexist to want to avoid discussions of how the spaces we interact in and the practices we engage in may [or may not] be racist/heterosexist. as i tried to point out, and angela elaborated on this, the point is to take the claims seriously and use reasoned argument, not assertion of opinion.
to be clear i was mildly concerned at first with what i saw as just one example of condescension which i've felt has been targeted strictly at women. i could be wrong about that. maybe i'm just sensitive --though that is a touchy thing to bring up, is it not? to tell people from oppressed groups that they're just touchy and sensitive is....huh what do folks call that if not a form of oppression? in any event, the issue now is this: my claim is that it is sexist to deride, belittle, ignore of treat as humorous concerns about sexism. that's my charge. folks should address that charge and show me how that charge is inaccurate in this case--with reasoned argument and not with "well gee i like what you have to say sometimes but not this time."
and you've known me for three years now doug. joe, ted, martin, albert and all the other baddies on this list can certainly vouch for the fact that i'm not a dogmatic feminist nor one who sees sexist oppression everywhere and anywhere. i am hardly the type to frequently or frivilously bring up the issue or charge someone with being sexist. for anyone to simply dismiss or think humorous such a complaint is, as far as i'm concerned, sexist. i happen to feel that charles' attitude toward me and other women on this list exhibits a form of sexism insofar as i think it's easier for men to quickly slide into condescending, patronizing positions when their interlocutor is a woman.
in that context, then, it took an awful lot of courage for me to even raise the issue. this is a very painful issue, for me as a woman. it was not something i said lightly nor was it something i hadn't thought about for quite some time. so, again, to have anyone in this conversation ignore the comment [original response], to dismiss it with humor [second response] and then to deny it [third] is offensive beyond belief and, as i've said, sexist.
>Doug
>
>
>