Men ignoring women

[cally]

Well, it happened again. Another man heard what I said and then turned to my husband to discuss the issue. This was during a caucus for candidates to the Dem convention. I once questioned my own expertise, my own opinions, or my own presentation. Nope. It was because am not a man.

Some background. I connected with my husband many years ago. We have a similar educatonal background and very similar politics. Over the years, I started pointing this out. If someone thought we had similar expertise, he/she would turn to my husband for the final information. Happened over and over again. We started out thinking that somehow my husband just answered the questions better or knew more. That worked for a few months except that I pursued the public sector and he pursued the business sector. Nothing changed. If it was a public policy or a business question, when it got intellectual, he was asked. Unless, I knew someone very professionally. Then, it was different. Folks knew our expertise.

So, the current question. A friend of my husbands who I've met and like asked us to support him for a delegate. We went to the caucus to support him. Talked to many and enjoyed most. I saw a man who I worked with at Home and School Club meeting several years ago. I go to talk to him and my husband walks up. We start talking about Bush and national politics which my husband acknowledges he doesn't follow as much as I do. He says this. But, this man turns to my husband and by his body language shuts me out. Over and over again. I'm annoyed and walk away to talk to someone else. In the back of my mind I'm wondering how he ever plans to make it in politics when he shuns women. When we are heading home, I ask my husband what he thought about this man. I'm trying to be fairly neutral about it. My husband says that he's a sexist idiot that ignores women. Well, he said it nicer than that. That was my read on this but it happens too many times. Why does any man try to do this in a political setting? It makes no sense? I'm much more involved in school politics, Democratic politics, and even small business decisions than my husband. It was so obvious what this man did. Why?

[cheezus]

1. yeah that happens

product of a lifetime of socialization - they don't mean to be sexist, they just don't know any better.

[Iris]

3. so perhaps her husband should

simply say, "My wife knows more about that than I do."

(otherwise we'll all continue to be "socialized" this way)

[cally]

9. He does say say that sometimes

but why should he? It's crazy. I worked with these folks on some of these issues. Yeah, I know. He's smarter. :eyes: Except I know that on some issues that I know more. We are a team. He knows lots more that me on many issues but I know more on some.

[Iris]

12. why should he? Because these dolts aren't going to "get it" on their own.

[SemperEadem]

48. so, he feels women should not be seen

is that also his view on voting, too? Seems like he feels he doesn't need the female vote, too...

[sangh0]

2. Two things

1) It may very well be because you are a female. I would suggest that you say something to this person in a mature and calm way. Explain what you saw happening, how it made you feel, adn most importantly, how bad this is for a person who is interested in pursuing political action

2) Have you considered the possibility that there is something in your demeanor, etc that might lead people to like/respect/etc your husband more? IOW, are you sure the only relevant difference between you and your husband is your gender?

[DebJ]

4. if you are a really hot looking babe, they might be afraid to look at you

too much with your husband standing around!:)

[Rich Hunt]

5. oh, brother...

What the poster describes is pretty common, actually.

No woman should have to scrutinize her 'attitude' ten times more than a man.

[sangh0]

7. You callled?

Yes, I know it's quite common. Believe it or not, I do get out from time to time. However, that doesn't mean that everytime a man prefers another man's opinion over a woman's that it's the result of sexism.

No woman should have to scrutinize her 'attitude' ten times more than a man.

Everyone should scrutinize their own behavior and thoughts. IMO, it's particularly important to do if you plan on scrutinizing anyone else's.

[Rich Hunt]

8. it's not a woman's job to do the 'work'

Men should be aware of how -they- might be perceived - i.e., that their behavior might be perceived as discriminatory, and give equal attention to all parties in the discussion. This isn't about whose opinion is 'preferred' (whatever the hell that means) - it is about whose opinion is deemed -on sight- to have greater worth.

See what you are doing - you are automatically assigning more weight to the men's perspective.

[sangh0]

13. I agree

which is why I never said that examining one's owns actions is something only women should do. I believe we all could use a little more if that.

it is about whose opinion is deemed -on sight- to have greater worth.

I'm not certain if this behavior is the result of men "preferring" a man's opinion, the result of men "assigning more weight to the men's perspective", or if it's the result of something specific to cally and her spouse. It may very well be that cally's husband is a very likable fellow and his likability is so obvious he draws people's attention like a moth to a flame.

Whatever it is, I find it odd that some would ignore the fact that I offered two possible explanations without making any certain conclusions about either one, and yet you respond as if I have decided on the 2nd explanation. I really doubt that either you or I can get to the bottom of this via the Internet. It seems to me like something cally has to decide for herself.

[cally]

16. Well, I'm going to accept that

Cally's husband should have been a politician. He has remarkable charisma. But, does that excuse anyone ignoring someone who knows more. Even when my husband says that.


I said earlier that it only happens when my husband is around. That is not true and is not my point. This is not about the individuals involved. I see it all the time about women, minorities, less educated, or any other less than powerful group. This is about power and the use of power. And the abuse.

[sangh0]

66. Thanks

I hope I didn't insult you by leaving an impression that I was doubting you on either this specific case, or in the general sense. As I said earlier, I do get let out from time to time, and I have seen that dynamic in action. I've also seen similar results arise from causes other than sexism.

[DFLer4edu]

20. I should be aware of how I am perceived

and I should not disregard a person's opinion simply because they are a women. However, the idea of giving all parties equal attention in a discussion is ridiculous (do you actually do this???). That is the idea of a debate, not the idea of a discussion. You can't actually give two people equal attention in a discussion because you're generally a lot more interested in what one person has to say than another. That doesn't mean I should block the other person out of the conversation and I shouldn't consciously choose a person's opinion because of their sex. You should judge people's opinions bases on merit.
But subconsciously, in general, men are going to prefer a man's opinion, just as a women is going to prefer a women's opinion. When you (dymaxia) said, "See what you are doing - you are automatically assigning more weight to the men's perspective," it would be fair to point out that you are automatically assigning more weight to the women's perspective. Be conscious of your behavior regardless of your sex. Cathy, I'm sorry the guy treated you this way, if he was blocking you out because you are a women, he is a real jerk.

[Rich Hunt]

65. another one who doesn't get it

You should judge people's opinions bases on merit.

Yeah, right - before you've even heard them!

Thanks for choosing to be defensive instead of choosing to listen.

[DFLer4edu]

134. Did I say, before I've even heard them?

[Rich Hunt]

149. uh, yeah - you did n/t

.

[DFLer4edu]

186. No I didn't

[demigoddess]

81. Amen,

This is what makes us older women so grouchy. We finally get so tired of this we just want to never speak to a man again.
P.s in our caucus we were talking about someday a woman running for pres. Some of the men were quite willing to vote for a woman.

[cally]

6. It does not happen when he is not there

so maybe. In this instance, the guy is a jerk. I think some of it because I'm married to my husband. That's part of my point. We are different people and those who know us recognize that

[Woodstock]

22. Number 2 is a BS answer

Why on earth would someone go to the trouble of posting a thread like this if they hadn't already worked that through?

It's like you are finishing up the diss job the guy played on her by saying something like that.

[cally]

23. OK..Explain please

I don't get your point or understand your opinion. :shrug:

[Ripley]

24. I believe Woodstock refers to post #2.

Which seems to take the typical approach of "blame the victim."

[Woodstock]

34. Correct - I was replying to post # 2 as my reply indicates

I was referring to post #2's answer number 2. In which Ripley summed up what was happening very nicely.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

10. ...Oh, I'm sorry, did you say something?

Ha! Okay... I'm a woman too. I just wanted to make that joke!

:silly:

:hi:

[bobbieinok]

14. 12+ years ago very outspoken woman on local city council

said every time she made a point, raised a question, gave an answer, no one looked at her or reacted. A male friend of hers repeated what she said and ....... then it was reacted to.

She had been on the council longer than her male friend.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

19. On a serious note...

I think a lot of Democratic men still have a long way to go on this issue. Just because a man calls himself a Democrat or liberal, that doesn't necessarily mean he's not still a jerk.

[woofless]

17. My first reaction too. LOL

I often have wicked thoughts but do not act on them. On the topic, when someone does that to us and it does happen, I turn my body away from the offender and make him answer Kathy.

[Cleita]

11. I'm with you Cally. It's especially hurtful when it comes from

those men who shouldn't be acting like Republican good ole boys.

[Eureka]

15. Don't you just hate that

This happens to a lot when I'm with Mrs Eureka too (who is way smarter than me, heaps better edumacated too, and way way better looking).

I totally missed "tact and diplomacy 101" at school, so I usually try something subtle, such as when this occurs I have in the past turned my back on whomever addressed me. Often they just don't get it and keep talking, but at least Mrs Eureka knows I'm not going to allow people to do this to her. If anyone gets offended by it, well screw them, they offended me first by assuming I take care of all the thinking for the family, which simply isn't so.

[Kanary]

18. This is what started the second wave of feminism over 30 years ago!

It's interesting you should bring this up.... I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple of weeks.

It was over 30 years ago, during the Vietnam War, when anti-war groups were planning actions, distributing literature, etc., and the women noticed they were always shuffled to the background. The coffee-getters, the ones to do the scut work.

The came together to talk about it, and consciousness raising groups were born.

Women now seem to think they are beyond all that... WRONG. We need the support of each other as much as we ever did.

It's very evident right here at DU. Just a few days ago there was a discussion about the use of the "C" word, and men basically wanted us to "get over it".

So many years, so little change.

My input, from having been involved all those years ago... you will need to speak up before you blow up, and you need the support of other women. We NEED each other.

Kanary

Kucinich 2004!

[Woodstock]

21. Unbelievable - they really said get over it?

I've NEVER to this day met a single solitary man who used the C word without wanting to slam women.

Decent men are aware of this and don't use the word.

[smirkymonkey]

35. Exactly, even if they aren't

using it about me, just the fact that they called another woman the C word tells me a lot about how they view women in general.

I don't know if I am imagining this, but I am seeing a lot more hostility toward women these days - pretty much in all areas. Has anyone else noticed that??

Also, does anyone know of a women only political discussion board or a feminist political chat site? Sometimes it would be nice to discuss certain issues and not get slammed for it.

[Kanary]

39. no, you're not imagining it

What you see is correct.. there is a lot more hostility towards women.

I'd also be interested in a women's political forum. Somedays I just can't handle more antagonism.

Kanary

[KathCO]

118. I know of one

there is a women's only forum on www.christianforums.org (which is for both christian and non-christian people).

[Kanary]

121. Thanks, KathCO

for mentioning another possibility.

That may be helpful info for some, here.

However, I'm just not in the place to get into any christian vs non-christian debates, so I will give a polite pass.

If any other possibilities come to mind, please post.

And, thanks again.

Kanary

[KathCO]

191. It's not all about christians vs. non-christians

but hope you find a forum that suits your needs.

take care

[Kanary]

38. You didn't see that thread, right here on GD?

It was just a few days ago.

Made me realize how .... NOT far we've come.

All kinds of rationalizations.

It's hard to keep the spirits up with that sort of thing.

Kanary

[Kanary]

43. What gets me, Woodstock,

is that if I were to use equivalent racial slurs on this forum, I'd be banned (and rightly so.) Yet it's still, all these years later, Ok to direct those words toward women. I realize that change doesn't happen overnight, but... after 30 years????

To me, everyone deserves common courtesy. And, if a person says "I don't want to be referred to in that way", that is enough. But, a lot of people here take that as an opportunity to argue, and say "You're too thin-skinned", and tell them how they should feel. Just a bit controlling, eh?

Sadly, I'm afraid the days of common courtesy are over.

Kanary

[SemperEadem]

49. it's a bullying mentality

think about it

everything you basically see on tv these days encourages the "bully" mentality in real life because most people feel ineffective about some issue in their lives--and when they can get any kind of a rise out of someone because of a messed-up comment, their day has been made.

To me, it's a waste of time telling someone "I don't want to be referred to in that way..." because that's like skipping up to them and asking for them to do it. It's best to keep your council, take notice and walk a wide path around it, unless you're ready to commit to what escalates if you choose to match their temerity.

[Kanary]

52. Bullying is definitely what it is, and it's rampant

Including here at DU.

As far as not responding, you're probably right. Unfortunately, what that leaves is pretty much staying to oneself, and not letting anyone close. I guess that works for introverts, but for us extroverts it's a real conundrum.

Sociopathic society... ya gotta love it.

Not.

Kanary

[DFLer4edu]

29. Can you give us a link

to the discussion you're talking about.

[Kanary]

40. That wasn't something I cared to bookmark

It had C*** in the subject line, I think.

You could probably find it in a search. Dunno if it's hit the archives yet.

Kanary

[salin]

41. are you sure it wasn't something

about your (and all women's) demeanor that caused this... it isn't necessarily about gender, you know... {/sarcasm}

[ohiosmith]

25. I'd like to discuss this with your husband.

[cally]

26. Exactly the point

Discuss it with my Husband. Oh, Ok. :shrug:

[rasputin1952]

27. It does happen far too often...

but a little less than just a decade ago.

Each individual has the right to voice their opinion. Some know more than me, some less. But to ignore a woman, simply because 'she is a woman', is pathetic at least.

Hillary Clinton and Carol Moseley Braun are too wonderfully intelligent women, they would not be treated like this, simply because of their stature. But they are not the only intelligent women on the planet.

I learned a long time a go, that getting as many ideas as possible, is th best way to change things for the better. For sure, some of those ideas will be a little 'wild', but when put into the mixture, we come to conclusions that generally work out.

Cally, you are a bright and sensitive individual; I sympathize with the situation, unfortunately, there will be knuckle-dragger's wherever you go. I have read many of your posts, and wish I could write as well as you do. I have seen your passion, and it has incited passion in me to act. Don't let these Neanderthals bother you. Your Husband seems to be dealing with it, as best he can. And I am willing to bet the farm, he stands by you, he could defer to you more often though.

O8)

[cally]

28. Thanks,

We haven't chatted in a long time but that means a lot. I feel the same about you. You are an incredibly sensitive, kind, informed person. It means much coming from you.

LOL. Yes he could defer to me more often. My husband was totally supportive during this. He did not back down and does not in situations like this.

[Darth_Kitten]

30. He's a sexist idiot.

Next time, call them on their behaviour. :D Excuse me, you were speaking to me and now you are ignoring me?

I don't know, it's worth a shot, you don't deserve to be ignored or neglected.

[flaminbats]

31. alot of men have difficulty talking to a woman when her husband is around

Women can have the same trouble when talking with men when their wifes are not around. Some people are just naturally insecure, always afraid of anything and everything that their spouse may scream at them for later.

Others have a strong sex drive, and know better than others they can easily loose control...and in the process loose their friends and reputation. This is why I do my best not to get offended when this sort of thing happens to me at social gatherings. But always remember, many individuals in today's world know how to hide their sexual feelings more than other emotions.

[Hammie]

32. Opposite for me.

When I go out with my wife, people talk to her more than me. She is better looking, and a better conversationalist than me. Maybe it isn't your gender at all?

[cally]

33. Until I started asking questions of the men and women around

me, I once thought that. Way too easy an answer and too many folks at these situations disagree. Let's remember that basic politeness means include everyone in the conversation. I've noticed this too many times, where women are ignored. I may accept that somehow I'm to blame here. I'm trained that way. I do not accept that this is not a cultural pattern because I've seen it too many times and read too much about it to ignore.

[rasputin1952]

37. You have struck a chord here...

"I am trained that way".

We are all 'trained' in certain ways. But that doesn't mean we HAVE to remain that way. I am 'trained' to be polite; but I can be a real jerk when I want to be. Kind of depends on the situation.

I have learned though, like I said earlier, I can be wrong, and I am willing to accept that, some people can't, and are 'trained' that 'women don't understand some things'. I have found out, women know a heck of a lot, and if some men would listen, this world would be a better place. We all have ears, makes sense to use them occasionally.

O8)

[maggrwaggr]

36. uh ... I'm a man and women ignore me plenty of times

I try not to take it personally or read anything political into it.

[Eloriel]

42. Good grief, Cally

No offense, but WHY ARE YOU NOT CALLING THESE JERKS OUT ON THEIR BEHAVIOR?

You think they're going to learn by osmosis or something? Psychic abilities? Message from God?

Again, I DON'T mean to be offensive, but if you're not any more assertive than that, perhaps that's what they're (not) responding to about you -- doesn't mean I don't think they're sexist pigs, just that IMO you have some responsibility to make it stop happening.

AND, in the last situation, why didn't your husband stop it -- if not by addressing it directly, by referring the conversation back to you? HE was participating -- willingly, openly, complicitly -- in your "being disappeared." Why are you letting HIM get away with that? (I wouldn't let the situation get so far that my husband would have to do that, but I'd beat him like a drum -- figuratively speaking, of course -- if he participated in MY humiliation that way.)

Why too are you not trusting your own instincts, observations, and take on things? I can understand SOMEtimes wanting to check out your own read on things, but are you doing that too much? You already knew that man treated you like the sexist pig he is -- you didn't need your husband's confirmation and validation of that!

Do you see how much of your power you're giving away? Goodness, girl, get with the program. Speak up! Trust your OWN instinct and observations. Quit being such a willing "victim" of the sexist treatment you're getting! Make them STOP.

[sangh0]

67. And some people think

I was engaging in "Blaming the victim"

[cally]

71. Give me a break

Those who know me well would double up in laughter at your comments. I'm well able to stand up for myself when I want to. I chose to just turn away because he was too much of a jerk to even try to educate. Like I said, I've dealt with him on many issues. As soon as I turned away, my husband immediately turned away and went to talk to someone else. I do trust my own judgement but I would be an idiot not to get a different opinion on my perceptions. I wondered if my husband, whose opinion I value, saw it the same way.

I will make sure that others know exactly why I do not support him for any office he runs for and start asking around for other stories.

[stevedeshazer]

44. Help needed

I'm a man. A liberal man.

Please help me understand what I can do to help without bashing me because of my plumbing and appearance.

Thanks.

I'll be away for a while.

[Mairead]

46. The main thing you can do, Steve --and it will be very hard for you!

because you'll be violating hell out of cultural standards and probably getting yourself into a lot of trouble with other men --is: if you're talking to a woman and a man tries to join the conversation, ignore the man beyond possibly a brief and neutral acknowledgement of his existence. If he's a good guy, he'll 'get it' and help you out and you'll enjoy a nice conversation between 3 equals. But if he's not a good guy he'll keep trying to hook you. Resist being hooked. He might actually get angry at and insulting toward you if you refuse to play his game, but persevere. She'll get what you're doing, you can bet on that. And appreciate the hell out of it too!

[Karenina]

53. Men in EVERY CULTURE

are taught during their socialization that women's voices are NOT as important as their own. IT'S THE SAME SHIT EVERYWHERE.

Flashback 1990:

Playdate with the boys out in Topanga Canyon, the 4 of them (5-7) busily playing video games as dinnertime approached.

Me: Guys, get your shoes on.

Ellen: Wrap it up!

No response.

We repeated, no one responded. Just then Nick walked in the door and said in a normal tone of voice, "Boys."

In 3 seconds ALL FOUR were standing in the doorway.

Ellen and I just looked at each other. :eyes:

THIS in spite of the fact that I TRAINED my sons to respond to my voice. Once they were in a social situation the "cultural imperative" took over.

Any woman in a male-dominated field will report the same phenomenon.
IT IS INVALIDATING AND INFURIATING.

Mairead, YOU hit the nail on the head. It is men who must be trained to SEE and HEAR what is occuring. A good friend covered my back in that manner once and I will never forget it. Mr. Big came to our table and proceeded to interrupt me. First Pete ignored him. Biggie got LOUDER in demanding his attention. Pete finally said calmly, "Hey listen can you quiet down for a second? I'm trying to hear what Karenina is saying. I'll be with you in a sec." It was CLASSIC.

[freestatevet]

54. "It is men who must be trained "

No thanks. We are not seals to be "trained."

[salin]

62. fair enough - but what would you suggest

good friend - physicist... international reputation. Yet in a number of circles noted that in work groups there were some male physicists who would consistently, in meetings, cut off mid-sentence any contributions made by the female physicists (my friend included), but who would always wait for the male physicists to complete their thought before speaking.

The pattern persisted over a period of years. Sometimes the behavior was more egregious (eg more than cutting off) than others.

One woman eventually raised the issue... and her work suddenly became consistently targeted, dismissed and worse. This was perceived as "personality conflicts". Eventually she got the attention of higher ups who pulled in other women to get confirming information (at this point my friend was pulled in... and did respond to the pattern of underlying behavior - preceding the professional assualts - and the concerns over the damage done to the colleagues work.) In the end the woman was moved to another work group and those who had done the targetted were never dealt with and continued their behavior. The higher ups recognized the targetted woman had been unfairly dealt with - and that the work product at the lab was suffering - but didn't know how to address the problem - so they moved her (away from her work) and let the offenders continue as they had before.

What would be an alternative way to deal with this, or similar situations in your opinion? The "training" mentioned above sounds to be an interpersonal approach (and in truth a rather passive aggressive attempt at behavior modification) rather than an institutional approach. An alternative would be?

[freestatevet]

64. Women need to be more forceful

and point out when they are being ignored. My wife is an electrical engineer in the Air Force. A male dominated field to say the least. She is very good at her job and when she talks, people listen. No one interrupts her or ignores her. Part of that is because of her known expertise and part of that is because of the way she carries and presents herself. It does help that she is 5'10 and attractive, but even in the early days, when she was starting out, she made it clear that she would not tolerate being ignored or talked over. It's worked. She also makes sure that the younger women under her are encouraged to speak up and not tolerate being pushed aside. It's women who need mentoring and assertiveness "training" in order to help break out of this mold.

[pmbryant]

103. It is not nearly so simple

Your wife is very fortunate to work in a male-dominated field amongst men willing to tolerate an aggressive woman. Unfortunately, there are many, many places where this is not the case.

Even salin's example above was not a terribly bad example, as at least the people in power there had some sympathy. I have seen plenty of examples, though, where it is the people in power themselves who set the example of walking over and mistreating any woman who dares to aggressively speak her mind.

If only it were so simple a problem as to be solved merely by "being more forceful".

--Peter

[Kanary]

109. Ever so exactly right, Peter!

One of the things we learned in the last 30 years is that not everything is predicated on what WE do. We can survey the surroundings and make our best guess, but others will do what they will do, regardless.

If we're dealing with those who have concern for others, we can make mistakes in how we speak or in how we conduct ourselves, and they will still hear us and treat us with respect.

If we're dealing with those who have NO concern, and just plain don't give a rip, we can speak and act perfectly, and will be dismissed, and worse.

WE are only part of the equation.

Kanary

Kucinich 2004!

[freestatevet]

163. Hey, they gotta quit

playing the victim and take charge of their lives. There is a difference between being "aggressive" and forceful.

[lolly]

132. Great Idea?

Of course, it's likely to get you labeled a "pushy, shrill bitch" and, in a job situation, might pretty much ruin your chances of advancement.

Having to continually "remind" people who should treat you with courtesy and respect is quite a burden. Those who don't have to "remind" will be at an advantage. Can you really not imagine the difference?

[Kanary]

79. That ship sailed

You have already been trained, just weren't aware of it at the time.

We've *all* been trained in various ways, and our challenge is to recognize that training, and overcome it.

Kanary

[sangh0]

68. You obviously never met my mom

whose voice could stop a truck driver in his tracks, and that's not a new development. I have some very fond memories from the early 60's of my mom laying waste to car mechanics, door to door salesmen, plumbers, etc

[FlaGranny]

61. I have noticed that when any two people

are talking, if a third walks up, sometimes one of the original two are "left out" of the conversation. That's pretty common.

[DFLer4edu]

136. Very true,

but I think Cally's case is a little different. But that does happen a lot, regardless of your sex, so it is worth thinking over.

[Mairead]

45. "Why does any man try to do this in a political setting?"

Same answer as it was in the '70s: testosterone poisoning. It shifts control from the upper head to the lower one, which has no brains at all. :(

[lostnfound]

47. Happens all the time nt

[phrenzy]

50. If somebody doesn't treat you with respect

In a conversation - Then just bail - or write that person off.

In your particular case it sounded very disrespectful of him and just flat rude and indeed motivated by a sexist attitude.

But, we must not confuse common rudeness or lack of tact with 'sexism' all the time.

I mean, sometimes I talk to people and I just don't like them - or they just don't present the information in a way that grabs my attention. Sad? yes. Sexist? no.

If a man and a woman are espousing political ideas with equal force and intellect I would want to listen to them both.

But, when somebody gives you the brush off in conversation - it's time to brush THEM off. Remove your self from their presence and find some worth while to talk to

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

51. Ever notice how men interrupt women all the time?

Remember the debates when Moseley-Braun was still in? The moderators had no problem interrupting her to give their own opinions - something not done to everyone else.

[highlonesome]

55. Some may be human nature?

I haven't had time to read all the posts, so forgive me if this has already been brought up....

Isn't it possible that some of this may just be human nature? By that I mean that it is just as possible that a man turns to speak to your husband more out of the idea that he feels more connected and more in common with another man than another woman. It's kind of along the same lines that if a man and a woman interview for a job with a male interviewer and both are of equal qualifications, it may be more likely that the man gets hired -- not because the interviewer has a problem with women, but because we all tend to connect more with those we feel we have something in common. Now I'm not saying this is right, just pointing out that it doesn't necessarily mean the man sees women as inferior.

I agree with your point, though, when you ask the question regarding how he hopes to make it in politics when he shuns 52% of the voting public. What are his stances on issues important to women? Maybe "shun" is too strong a term -- but as a politician and potential leader, the ability to connect with those one doesn't necessarily feel connection with is a talent that an amateur needs to cultivate.

[cally]

72. So?

I brought this up because it happens all the time to most women. I had just spent an hour chatting with folks there. Whether it's human nature or not, most include all in conversations. I had many interesting, funny conversations with many different people. This was a place where folks were trying to get votes. That why this surprised me so much. If he acts this way in this setting, imagine how he acts in other settings.

[NewJeffCT]

56. Sadly, politics is still often considered a man's domain

Politics is still considered a man's domain. While it is changing slowly with more women as governors and senators, the only national female candidate was swamped by Reagan/Bush in 1984, and most remember Janet Reno for Ilian Gonzalez and Waco. Condi 'Unsticker' Rice is still more seen than heard and Madeleine Albright was overshadowed by Monica Lewinsky. It will take another generation – 20 years or so – for it to change for the population at large.

However, look at how things have changed since Ferraro ran - what is the increase in the number of women in Congress and holding governorships? Progress is sometimes evolution instead of revolution.

[highlonesome]

60. That's a misconception, I think

The biggest campaign contributor since 1994 is a women's group known as Emily's list. I think they finance in the range of around $20,000,000 per year. Campaigns are very much about money and with that kind of loot cakes, it's hard for me to agree that the group with the greatest financial resources are somehow left out of the political game. I'm not sure, but I also believe that that $20,000,000 comes mostly or completely from private donations. To me that says there are some very powerful people that are very much behind women advancing in politics.

To me, it isn't as much about gender as it is about message. I wouldn't vote for Mosely-Braun not because she's a woman, but because I don't agree with her positions. The other problem is finding women to run. The way I see it, people are dying to get good women leaders in office -- like the 52% female voting population--but women are dropping out of career politics or placing personal limits on what they want to sacrifice in order to advance.

[NewJeffCT]

63. True, women are more likely to place limits...

Women are often socialized from a young age into putting their family before their careers, even if they have greater potential income-wise or politics-wise than their husbands - luckily, my wife was brought up in an environment where she would not allow her career to take a back seat to mine... but, she was raised outside the US.

But, a lot of time, a woman is considered a bad person if she puts her career (political or business) ahead of family. A man that does that is doing his duty as a man.

[highlonesome]

70. maybe so, but

I guess I'd rather vote for a leader who, once she's aware of socializaiton, possesses enough leadership and self actualization to act against it.

To say there aren't enough viable women candidates mainly because of socialization is kind of like saying they lack strength of character -- which I do not believe.

[NewJeffCT]

93. no, I'm not saying that

I am not saying that women lack strength of character at all, I am saying that because of the way our society is, women feel more pressure to put their career on the backburner than men do. So, if a woman gets into politics or is very successful in the business world, they likely have had to overcome more obstacles & social pressures than a man.

A stay-at-home husband, or one that makes significantly less than his wife, is still rare. It may be a greater number than it was 20 years ago, but it is still not very common.

[rasputin1952]

57. It has been brought up several times, that a lot of this type...

of behavior is 'sexist'. If you want to believe that, it is fine by me. But I don't agree. 'Sexist' is as term, like all other 'ist's & 'ism's', it has its place, but not in all settings. It is also a double edged sword. Thee are times when women DO NOT want to discuss things with men; does this make them 'sexist'? Perhaps, but most likely, no. Does a table of women calling, 'All men liars and deviates', make them 'sexist'? Most likely, yes.

Context, as with everything else, must be taken into account. I have been through this thread, and I have seen various emotions at work, what I have failed to see, in almost every case, is the notion that an individual, personally, may be wrong, or their opinion may not be accepted as 'fact'.

We are 'hardwired' for defense. We can often feel slighted, when that was not the intent, either by design, or out of ignorance. We tend not to accept others points of view, unless there is a 'common bond'. There is a natural bond between women and women, men and men. There is a natural bond between people of like thought patterns. But every slight, is NOT, in definitive terms, by design. There are many things going on during these conversations.

While I support everyone to have equal time and effort to discuss their views, sometimes, we must understand, that our personal views may not be of consequence at a certain point. It is one of those things that one needs to learn to grow. Our views may be important to us, but not to others. This should NEVER be allowed as an excuse for rude behavior though. I would have acted like the individual who discussed this in a post about Karenina; I would have told the bombastic windbag to calm down as well, I'd get to him/her in a minute. It is just rude to implore that one's opinion is simply more important than another's, especially when I am in a conversation with another.

OK...Flame away.

O8)

edited to accept flaming

[FlaGranny]

58. That is very interesting.

You see, the opposite happens to me. For instance, a couple of weeks ago, my husband took his car to the garage, and when we went to pick it up, the mechanic started explaining things to me instead of my husband??? This HAS happened before and in other situations. I'm not young, not beautiful, so I know that's not the reason. Maybe it is a certain unconscious "presence" or something. I have no idea. Of course, if I'm standing next to a young, beautiful gal, I don't have a chance.

My husband does tend to be on the reserved side, so maybe it shows in body language. Things like this can be very subtle. Of course, the people you are talking about may just be "sexist idiots."

[Az]

59. Not enough information

There could be any number of reasons for this reaction (including the unfortunate mysoginistic ones). It could be your delivery or it could be your pacing. Any number of factors contribute to who people pay attention too.

I have a friend who disappears when I am in the area. This drives her insane. If I enter the area people immediately seem to stop noticing her. Some people have very strong presenses while others recede into the background. This is merely how the human psyche works. It picks up on all sorts of cues such as body language, confidence, tone, eye contact, etc and decides who is the dominant individual in the area. We are pack animals and our instinct is to look to who ever is the dominant individual in the group (this can be the woman, its not just alphamale). Perhaps your husband has a very strong presense. There are ways to modify this if your husband is willing to work on it.

[highlonesome]

69. have you tried breath mints?

[Jane Roe]

73. Maybe he is afraid of people . . .

who jump to conclusions of sexism based on flimsy evidence.

With these kinds of conclusion-jumpers, my policy is, the less said the better.

[cally]

74. Two of the three people in the conversation

believed he acted in a sexist way. Perhaps, it is just my own behavior that many suggested or my husbands that caused this reaction. Maybe. Many other women on this thread have observed similar behavior in their own lives. Oh, I guess they didn't observe sexism either. I've read studies documenting that it is prevalent for women to be interrupted more than men, for men to pay attention to other men more often than women, and on and on. But that's not sexism either?

Noone else was documenting the interaction. I'm giving my impression and my husband's on what we both observed and believed. But of course it's couldn't be sexism...We both are jumping to conclusions and I shouldn't give my impressions here. sheesh :eyes:

[Jane Roe]

75. I think you have to give individuals the benefit of the doubt

especially when the accusation is something ugly like sexism.

I have been ignored plenty in my life by both men and women. It is possible that it is sexism, but I am not accusing anybody without better evidence beyond the fact that I was ignored and a female companion had attention paid her.

I am glad that your husband knew what position to take to best soothe your hurt feelings last night. I surely would have said the same thing were I in his position because the imperative of marital harmony can sometimes justify a little white lie here and there.

[sangh0]

76. I suggest you take your own advice

With these kinds of conclusion-jumpers, my policy is, the less said the better.

[Jane Roe]

77. Thank goodness for anonymity

or else I would have to agree with you here.

[cally]

78. Except if you read my post

I asked in a neutral way what he thought of the man he just met for the first time. We talked about several people we had met at the event. We thought a few came on to strong, or were too obviously hustling for votes. We talked about much we liked some of the folks. We talked about how informed and smart others were. The only person he mentioned who was sexist was the same one that I thought was.

My feelings were not hurt. I was angry and had decided not to support this man for public office because of his actions. I truly do not understand your basis for your criticism.

I related what I observed and my impression to open a dialogue on this issue becuase I know this happens to others. I know it happens to others because I've heard others complain, seen it, and read studies about it. I wanted to remind DUers about this and how offensive it is.

Who is jumping to conclusions, by the way? You were not in the conversation, do not know my husband nor I personally, have no idea how my husband and I behave when together, but you imply that my husband was trying to placate me for marital harmony and that my feelings were hurt.

Your conclusions have no basis in fact.

[Jane Roe]

80. ahhh, you figured it out, very good

1. You are the "gander"

2. I am the "goose"

3. jumping to unfavorable conclusions is the "sauce"

4. How you like the sauce now?


On edit: as much as you think that you fooled your husband in regard of your neutrality, most husbands know their wives better than they realize. I call it male intuition.

[sangh0]

84. The "sauce" was ruined

by your false assertion that call jumped to an unfavorable conclusion. If you read cally's posts, you'd see that she did not jump to any conclusions. She consulted with someone who's judgement she trusted, and considered the facts in context with her previous experience. Now she has posted about it here and asked for comments. None of this indicates haste in coming to a conclusion.

But if you keep repeating "jumping to conclusions" someone might listen to you.

[Jane Roe]

87. The conclusion to which was jumped

"Nope. It was because am not a man."

That is the conclusion of sexism that I refer to. It comes right out of the original post.

As far as the poster's experiences with other men -- she shouldn't be blaming the guy last night for things other men have done to her in the past.

As far as her husband supporting her -- I think I have previously dealt with exactly how much that should count here as far as evidence of sexism.

Sexism is a serious charge. It is not nice to throw it around lightly. That is exactly what is going on in this thread, from the original post on down. The original post went beyond merely sharing observation and right ahead to the drawing of conclusions about the existence of sexist motivations. The original post crossed this line when it said:

"Nope. It was because am not a man."

[cally]

88. Now it's because of what other men have done to me

in the past? What exactly is in my past? You are really reaching now.

I base my conclusion on observation, experience, reading, information, and confirmation by another source. Some of that is interactions with men and women.

Your points are getting more and more absurd.

[Jane Roe]

90. Other men? Other women?

who were you referring to when you wrote?:

"If someone thought we had similar expertise, he/she would turn to my husband for the final information. Happened over and over again."

[sangh0]

89. You are jumping to conclusions again

"she shouldn't be blaming the guy last night for things other men have done to her in the past." - You have jumped to the conclusion that cally's conclusion is based solely on the behavior of other men. The truth is, cally posted about more than that. She also consulted her husband, but I'll jump to a conclusion and assume you claim that cally's spouse also jumped to a conclusion on the basis of his being ignored by sexist men.

"As far as her husband supporting her -- I think I have previously dealt with exactly how much that should count here as far as evidence of sexism"

Your previous post jumped to the conclusion that her spouse was patronizing, a conclusion for which you posted no evidence. Just speculation.

[Jane Roe]

92. No, I'm not. See post #90 for my foundation on this.

On edit: on the spouse issue: I can't really tell whether the spouse was agreeing just for the sake of marital harmony or not. Neither can Cally. Since the spouse isn't posting to say what he really thinks, I don't think his impressions count for a whole lot in proving the charge of sexism here.

When one makes an accustaion of sexism, one should take one's burden of proof seriously. "and my husband said that I was right and the man really was sexist" just doesn't cut it. How did the husband know the man was sexist -- as opposed to being rude on some other basis (eg, weight, bad breath, attractiveness, race, regionalism, etc, etc, etc)? Maybe he jumps to conclusions, too. Maybe he just likes harmony in his marriage. Without some concrete facts that lead the husband to his conclusions, his impressions shouldn't count as evidence of sexist intentions.

All this reminds me of that Lionel Hutz quote from the Simpsons, responding to a hearsay objection: "But hearsay is a *kind* of evidence."

[sangh0]

101. You jump to conclusions again, and you distort your position

On edit: on the spouse issue: I can't really tell whether the spouse was agreeing just for the sake of marital harmony or not

earlier (post375) you said "I am glad that your husband knew what position to take to best soothe your hurt feelings last night."

You had no problem telling us why cally's spuse agreed with her a short while ago. What happened?

I surely would have said the same thing were I in his position because the imperative of marital harmony can sometimes justify a little white lie here and there.

It might be hard for someone who jumps from one position to another (ie. "your husband lied to you" to "I can't really tell whether the spouse was agreeing just for the sake of marital harmony or not") to understand how the consistent honesty in a couple's interactions make your hasty conclusion (and confusion) unreasonable, and cally's conclusion (that her husband was being honest with her) reasonable and not hasty.

When one makes an accustaion of sexism, one should take one's burden of proof seriously. "and my husband said that I was right and the man really was sexist" just doesn't cut it. How did the husband know the man was sexist -- as opposed to being rude on some other basis (eg, weight, bad breath, attractiveness, race, regionalism, etc, etc, etc)? Maybe he jumps to conclusions, too. Maybe he just likes harmony in his marriage. Without some concrete facts that lead the husband to his conclusions, his impressions shouldn't count as evidence of sexist intentions.

And cally did post concrete facts. You, in your haste to come to a conclusion different than cally's, have chosen to ignore those facts.

[Jane Roe]

105. The change occurred in post #80

In post #80, I very forthrightly explained that I had been copying the original poster's technique of jumping to conclusions with my poetic little metaphor of the gander and the goose and the sauce.

From post #80 onwards I did not jump to conclusions, but did keep suggesting possible interpretations of the facts that ran counter to the conclusions being drawn on this thread. Suggesting alternative possibilities, as mere possibilities, is not the same as jumping to conclusions.

In other words, at post #80, I stopped jumping to conclusions and took the position that we don't have enough evidence to fairly accuse anyone of sexism. If we could all agree that from what we know, maybe the guy was sexist, maybe he wasn't, then I would be satisfied.

However, those willing to rely on Cally's ESP and/or Cally's husband's ESP have not stopped jumping to conclusions and that is unfair. Cally's factual basis and her husband's factual basis comes down to the fact that she got the cold shoulder from someone of the male gender. That evidence is far too weak and equivocal to jump to conclusions the way Cally and her husband have.

[cally]

116. I hope you keep up this argument

because it makes your case weaker and weaker. Now you are claiming that our observation, experience, reading, and knowledge is only ESP. Do you even realize how dismissive that is of my experience and it what I was talking about to begin with. Dismissing a woman's experience just validates my enire point. I hope you aren't as condescending when folks share their opinions in real life. The part that I find ridiculous about your arguments is that you are claiming knowledge with absolutely no basis in fact.

I agree with others that I will probably bring this up with this man at some point and will also ask others what their experience has been. I said that I planned to do that earlier.

[Jane Roe]

117. If it turns out that your ESP was wrong about his sexist motivations . . .

I hope you will be woman enough to come back to DU and admit it as publicly as you made your accusation of sexism.

[sangh0]

127. Condescension

does not help your argument or your credibility

[noiretextatique]

128. actually, her husband first made the observation

perhaps he should apologize as well :eyes:

[Jane Roe]

143. If that is true, good idea n/t

[Kanary]

120. Your intuition is your friend, cally

We women have so often been taught to distrust our intuition and our own senses. We follow that teaching to our own detriment. It's clear that you know this, and I'm glad you do. So many of us have lost those most valuable attributes, all in the name of "making peace".

99% or 98% of the time, our intuitions turn out to be exactly right. I'm willing to risk that other 1% or % perscent, and it sounds like you are, also.

I don't believe there is any way our self-named "adversary" is going to grant you any slack here. However, by your being so forthright and clear with this issue, and the resulting harsh replies, it is very probably eye-opening to some of the younger women what is actually going on.

Kudos again, cally.

Kanary

Kucinich 2004!

[Jane Roe]

141. Intuition is fine by me

but not when making allegations of sexist behavior. Sexism is a serious thing and there better be some evidence -- not just evidence of rude behavior -- I mean evidence that the rudeness was based on gender.

Here there is evidence of rude behavior, but little or no evidence that the rude behavior was based on gender. I say that because there is a lot more to Mrs. and Mr. Cally than their respective reproductive organs.

I understand, and agree with the suspicion of sexism, as a suspicion, not a conclusion. I even agree with the approach of asking the apparently rude guy why he was apparently rude. However, the original post and many of the subsequent posts (see post #110) go well beyond suspicion and jump to conclusions that are not justified based on the mere observation of rudeness that have been shared with us.

Also: reviewing the posts on this thread, it has been revealed that the original poster and the apparently rude guy interacted before to a substantial degree. This makes me suspect that he may have observed something he didn't like about Cally in their previous meetings. He clearly had had opportunity to observe Cally prior to two nights ago. My intuition and ESP make me suspect (but not conclude) that she said or did something that rubbed him the wrong way and he decided not to speak with her on that basis. This possibility makes the possibility of sexism less likely. Call this "blaming the victim" if you want -- I think it is more accurate to call it "trying to figure out who the victim *really* is."

[cally]

85. Ahh, jumping to conclusions again??..nt

.

[Kanary]

83. Conclusion jumping, indeed

Cally, I'm sorry that you are being so confronted for having simply posted an observation of an experience you had. It is quite difficult to keep experiencing these things in life, and to not be able to talk about them without all sorts of assumptions and veiled attacks being made makes it that much more difficult.

We all need to be able to share the things that sting us, and to have some understanding. I have come to the conclusion that this is NOT the venue for this sort of understanding and support, having been most callously dismissed myself here.

A lot of people seem to come to the conclusion that politics is no place for interpersonal interaction and support. I, personally, believe that conclusion is why politics has been allowed to become such a dirty, messy business. I also think it's precisely the inclination of women to bring interpersonal relationships to everything they do that is so sorely needed in politics. Treating each other as worthwhile human beings should be our first priority. It has obviously slipped waaaay down the list.

I will say again that it may be necessary for women to seperate themselves in politics, as was done before, in order to maintain our strength and viability.

I appreciate that you have brought this issue into the public view, and wish that you had not received so many slings and arrows for your efforts.

Thank you....

Kanary

[cally]

86. Thanks Sangh0 and Canary

I'm amazed at the reaction and see it as confirming my point. I brought this up not because I wanted confirmation but because I see this all the time and more of us have to fight it. I appreciate your posts.

[sangh0]

91. Your welcome.

You know, at first I was a little surprised that my suggesting the possibility of another explanation was perceived by some as "blaming the victim", but after reading through this thread, I guess I shouldn't have been surprised. There's a good reason for the sensitivity.

[Kanary]

95. Certainly, Cally

I learned over 30 years ago that women need each other. All those years have not changed my mind, and, in fact, I think we need each other more now than ever. Most of us just have a hard time recognizing that.

There's also nothing wrong with needing confirmation...... it can keep us grounded.

I guess I shouldn't be amazed, as I have been treated coldly also, but..... I'm afraid there is more work to be done in this area than I have the heart for. Especially without the support of other women.

I still appreciate you bringing this up. What has been said is very illustrative, and you have brought much to light.

Kanary

[Jane Roe]

96. The more women throw around unsubstantiated sexism accusations

the more they will need to support each other.

[Kanary]

98. What's your hostility from, "Jane"?

[Jane Roe]

99. unsubstantiated accusations of sexism

unsubstantiated accusations of racism make me even more adversarial (I don't think I am hostile).

I think these loose allegations alienate people from progressive causes -- so they don't just hurt feelings, they actually help perpetuate sexism and racism, which, to me, is a bad thing.

These unsubstantiated accusations may seem like innocent fun or justified venting, but I don't agree with that.

[Kanary]

100. Is that akin to "unsubstantiated accusations of racism"?

Sounds like it's cutting close to the bone for you.

And, yes, your degree of being "adversarial" seems like much more than just trying to protect "progressive causes." Maybe you could take it down a notch?

As I said before, I lived through all this 30 years ago, and the protestations are remarkably the same.

If this is "fun" for you, then that speaks volumes.

Kanary

[sangh0]

102. I am also suprised

that someone as eager to promote and protect progressive causes as Ms Roe would use the exact same langauge and arguments the Republican bigots use.

[Jane Roe]

111. "same language . . . bigots"

You want to back that up with a citation or are you just talkin'?

[sangh0]

124. I am surprised that someone as supportive of progressive causes as you

has never heard the bigots whine about how "libruls", feminazis and niggrahs cry "Racism" at the least provocation. They call it a "culture of victimization". If you need a cite, read almost anything by Pat Buchanan. He's big on that rant.

[Jane Roe]

142. so you failed

I asked for where I used the same language as bigots.

you said that the common language was: "libruls," "feminazis," "niggahs" and "culture of victimization."

Go back and review my posts. You will see that I did not use any of this language. Your accusation about me using the same language as bigots is unfounded, rude and unfair to me.

As far as whether the original poster is indeed crying "sexism" on insufficient evidence -- yes, I think that. I think that is a problem. I think that gives true sexists (not me!) good ammo to use against progressives in argument. I am trying here and now to stop this from happening. You don't seem to get that.

[sangh0]

147. Here ya go

"unsubstantiated accusations of racism" is the same language the bigots use when confronted by those they have discriminated against.

"I think these loose allegations alienate people from progressive causes" is the argument the bigots use when pretending to oppose racism.


"so they don't just hurt feelings, they actually help perpetuate sexism and racism" which is also the language bigots use to misportray their adverseries as racists.

[Jane Roe]

151. and what bigot has ever used this language?

let me explain to you what using the "sanme language" means

It means that there is some language that both: (1) I used; and (2) some bigot used.

If you cite me language that Pat Buchanan or Rush Limbaugh used, but I did not use, then that is not the "same language" and your citation fails for failure to meet condition (1).

On the other hand, if you cite language that I used, but nobody besides me has used, then your citation fails for failure to meet condition (2).

Now that you understand the true meaning of "same language" and can see that your "same language" argument was based on your misunderstanding of the meaning of the phrase "same language," I am ready and waiting for an apology.

[sangh0]

154. I've already given you the cite

If you cite me language that Pat Buchanan or Rush Limbaugh used,

One doesn't "cite language". One *quotes* what another says.

I mentioned Pat Buchanon who has written several racist screeds. That's a citation, as you requested. It is not a quote, which you did not request. If you want to see the "same language" in print, I suggest you use my citation to track it down. Then you'll see you use the same language and arguments that the bigots (like PB) use.

Now that you understand the true meaning of "same language" and can see that your "same language" argument was based on your misunderstanding of the meaning of the phrase "same language," I am ready and waiting for an apology.

Now that you understand the true meaning of "citation" and can see that your "same labguage" argument was based on your misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "citation," I am ready and waiting for an apology.

[Jane Roe]

157. so I am supposed to either . . .

take your word that Bucahanan and I use the same language, or else look it up myself somehow. No thanks. It is clear at this point that you cannot back up your groundless "same language" argument.

You make accusations that you can't support. No wonder you are so eager to defend the original poster here. Your posts suffer at least common defect -- unsupported allegations.

As far as "same arguments" -- yes, when unsupported allegations of racism and sexism are bandied about, conservatives call progressives on that and hurt the cause. On this thread, me, a fellow progressive is calling the posters on this so that conservatives won't get a chance to make mincemeat out of our ESP-based sexism detectors.

Your intentions may be good, the unsupported conclusioning of the overly-PC is a big part of what put that Chimp in the White House. You and Ralph Nader can keep shooting your mouths off all you want -- you ain't helping. I am here to show the world that progressives can be careful and refined in their thinking and accusing, even on hot-button issues like gender and race.

[sangh0]

160. Still using the same language as Buchanan?

the overly-PC I never hear progressives use the term PC. I only hear it from "supposed progressives who use the same language and arguments as the conservatives"

You and Ralph Nader - Linking liberals to extremists like Nader is a favorite ploy of conservatives

[Jane Roe]

165. conservatives aren't the only ones

making the link between the Nader candidacy and the fact that the US is ruled by a Chimp. Beyond your ad hominem (sp?) arguments, your post does nothing to dispute this link.

As far as "overly-PC," two questions:

1. Do you acknowledge that this mindset exists?

and

2. If so, what is a more polite name for this mindset?




On edit: Actually, I attribute the close '00 election more to the fact that Bush hid his true colors than to the Nader candidacy. It is the '04 Nader candidacy, inchoate as it may be, that I vehemently oppose.

[sangh0]

169. Who said they were the only ones?

But I noticed you don't refute my claim that your language and arguments are also used by conservatives.

. Do you acknowledge that this mindset exists?

No

If so, what is a more polite name for this mindset?

Do you mean the mindset that leads people to imagine the existence of the "overly-PC"? I call it "supposed progressive who uses the language and arguments of conservatives"

[Jane Roe]

172. I see:

If Pat Buchanan had somehow come out against the Iraq War, then it would still be okay for progressives to oppose this war based on similar reasons.

It is not categorically bad to agree with conservatives. What matters is whether the arguments are good or bad -- not who makes them. I like these new ground rulez we have come to!

[sangh0]

187. Breaking News!

Pat Buchanan has NOT come out against the Iraq War, anad if he does, I doubt liberals are going to agree with his reasoning. How sad your argument has to rely on such absurd imaginings

It is not categorically bad to agree with conservatives.

Now there's something I hear all the progressives saying!

[Jane Roe]

195. wrong

Pat Buchanan came out against the Iraq War much earlier and much more vehemently than the leading Democratic candidates for president.

I can provide you with lots'o'links as proof, if you do not believe my observation on this point.

Of course, Buchanan, on the Iraq War, shows why it is wrong to categorically reject everything every conservative says. If we did that, then we would have to respond to Buchanan's opposition to the War by supporting the War. And that would clearly be the wrong thing to do!

[sangha]

196. Wrong

Check Pat's position. His objections are not being repeated by progressives.

And the people here on DUers objected long before Pat did, so the idea that progressives are following Pat is absurd

[Jane Roe]

198. I didn't say that progressives followed Buchanan . . .

I merely said that he had come out (early) against the Iraq War and that progressive generally agree with this stance of being against the Iraq War.

and, yes, progressives use many of the same arguments against the war that Buchanan has and does.

Pat Buchanan has said some pretty offensive and racist things in his career. However, his arguments against the Iraq War have been timely (lookin' at you Kerry), intelligent and admirable. Hopefully, this can teach us a lesson about judging the message rather than the messenger.

[Jane Roe]

194. No such thing as too PC?

well, at least we have gotten down to a concise statement of one of our fundamental disagreements.

I do think there is such a thing as too pc. To some readers, this belief probably makes me hard to distinguish from Rush Limbaugh, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

IMPORTANT SIDE NOTE: I am still open to a better synonym for "pc." I was in grad school when pc was still an approving adjective, and I watched this term get co-pted over the 1990s by the other side. Hopefully, there is a newer, more neutral, less baggaged term to describe the pc mindset. Or is this the mindset that dare not speak its name as far as progressives are concerned?

[sangha]

197. Nice distortion

You have a knack for using words like "mindset" and conflating them with other terms like "too PC" when there is a difference.

Also, you haven't responded to my point that you seem to be the only "progressive" concerned with an excess of PC from the left.

[Jane Roe]

199. First, I don't think I am the only one

Second, I think a reasonable degree of a PC mindset is a good thing. I probably embrace the PC mindset much more than the average American. As long as it isn't taken too far, I think PC thinking, speaking and writing is a good thing.

Now can I have my progressive synonym for PC? For mindset? For PC mindset?

This seems like a fair request to me.

[Jane Roe]

108. I never said this was fun for me

I take this discussion seriously.

As far as my tone goes, there are established DU procedures for dealing with issues in that area.

[Kanary]

113. "Fun"

You said you thought some of the accusations might have been made in "Fun".

That demeans and dismisses what women deal with.

Is it possible for you to actually *hear* what women live with? Is there any possibility of compassion?

Compassion, after all, is part of the the progressive cause.

Kanary

[Jane Roe]

114. "fun" example, see post #110

I certainly hope that a wicked, evil, sexist overgeneralization like the one in post #110 was not intended seriously. I am not trying to say that all the posts are evil like that, but hopefully post #110 was made in fun, because otherwise it would just be too cruel for a progressive board.

[Karenina]

125. Pssst.... Kanary...

Posts accompanied by a handle and avatar that are at best "dubious" often presage a waste of bandwidth! Pass it on...

[noiretextatique]

131. lol...hey there!

i couldn't agree with you more. HINT: when someone claims to know more about your own, real-life personal experience than you do, that person is:

a) arrogant
b) arrogant
c) arrogant
or
d) all of the above

[Jane Roe]

144. The original poster has drawn conclusions

I am arguing that there is *uncertainty* about the politics of the apparently rude guy.

Therefore, which one of us is claiming to "know" more here?

It has got to be the original poster.

However, I doubt her claim of superior knowledge comes from arrogance as your post suggests. I think it is from the socialization she has received from the posters here at DU.

[sangh0]

148. Do you really believe that?

You have already admitted to saying things you don't really believe (see posts #75 and #80) so how can I tell if you have made a carefully considered conclusion that you honestly believe, or if this is just another example of your saying things you don't really believe in order to make a point?

[Jane Roe]

150. I have admitted characterizing . . .

what I saw and still see as "possibilities" as firm conclusions in order to make a point about jumping to conclusions.

This may be a bit subtle for some, but it is not really similar to hiding what my true beliefs are and (eventually) admitted uncertainties are.

Anyway, when I admit that I am uncertain as to what, if anything, was going on inside the apparently rude guy's head -- that is a very modest statement on my part that should be believable on its face. That is because we, as human beings, generally cannot read other people's minds with any degree of certainty. I keep hoping that someone on this thread will understand and acknowledge this simple fact about the limits of typical human perception. So far, the other posters just don't seem to get this. They would rather trust the ESP that the original poster and her husband are effectively claiming.

[sangh0]

162. So you didn't tell the truth

I have admitted characterizing what I saw and still see as "possibilities" as firm conclusions in order to make a point about jumping to conclusions.

You said it was a conclusion when it really was only a possibility, but when you intentionally stated it as a conclusion, it was not.

This may be a bit subtle for some, but it is not really similar to hiding what my true beliefs are and (eventually) admitted uncertainties are

I guess it's "subtlety" explains why you don't explain the difference.

I keep hoping that someone on this thread will understand and acknowledge this simple fact about the limits of typical human perception. So far, the other posters just don't seem to get this. They would rather trust the ESP that the original poster and her husband are effectively claiming.

Ahh, you can't read people's mind, but you know cally's thoughts well enough to know that her conclusion is based on ESP.

Nice.

[Jane Roe]

166. I know Cally's thoughts and reasoning . . .

because she published these for all the world to read and because I took the further step of reading them.

[sangh0]

171. So you didn't tell the truth, again

Do you really think that cally published ALL her thoughts and reasoning, or is this another case of your pretending to jump to a conclusion in order to show why jumping to a conclusion is wrong?

It's hard to tell when you're being sincere from when you're being facetious. In fact, I see no difference at all.

[Jane Roe]

175. Are you saying that the allegedly rude guy . . .

might have made some sexist comments to Cally or her husband the other night, but she somehow failed to relate these comments in the original post.

In context of this thread, that strikes me as so unlikley as to be ridiculous to even suggest.

[cally]

173. Unfortunately, you don't

because you assume that you know what happened at an event that you were not part of. Somehow, you jump to conclusions and belittle my experience and those there.

Please, continue debating everyone here. But please quit telling me and all others on this board assumptions about my life and me. You have told me what my husband meant. How I'm wrong with my judgement, how somehow I'm hurting progressive causes because I experienced sexism, I'm shy and not forceful in person, my husband is more charasmatic, etc, etc.

Enough. We all know your point. The absurd personal assumptions have gone too far.

[Jane Roe]

176. This thread will die when folks convince me . . .

or tire of conversing. No sooner.

Also, suggesting possibilities (which I have done since post #80) is not the same as drawing conclusions. You draw conclusions where there is uncertainty -- I suggest possibilities where there is uncertainty. I think my approach on to uncertainty is the better one, but I am having a hard time getting that across.

Also, where did I say "shy' or "charismatic" or anything like that. Please don't put the words of other posters into my mouth.

[cally]

188. You are not suggesting possibilities

Instead you are projecting your own biases on an experience where you were not there.

I draw conclusions based on experience, research, others opinions, and core values. Where have you gotten your condescension from. Any research to support that interactions between men and women are often sexist--nope. Women and the men with them see something as sexist and yet you deny it--why. Because I suspect you have been accused of sexist behavior and this is your way of fighting that. It's easy when it's anonymous as you stated above. Much easier than dealing with your behavior in real life.

So, I'm going to play your game which seems to be acceptable with the mods and admin.

I infer that you have serious issues accepting women's or men's observations of their life experience if it threatens your view of the world. I think you enjoy animosity and argument. I think you enjoy belittling women's experience and want a man to validate her experience. I think you do not rely on research because it threatens your view of the world.

And yes, you have used similar arguments in many of your posts. I thought this was against the rules but I guess not.

[Jane Roe]

192. What I accept and don't accept

I accept the observations of the original poster. The observations include things like: I was with my husband, we encountered this candidate, he paid attention to my husband, he ignored me, he was rude. I believe the poster in all these *observations.*

What I do not accept is the conclusions that she has drawn. She did not observe what was going on in the rude guy's head when he was rude. She could not see it, touch it, taste it, smell it or hear it (or perceive it through her other 2 senses: sense of time passage and sense of balance). Her "observation" of sexism is not an observation at all, it is speculation.

Am I saying that we can never draw conclusions of sexist behavior?

No, not at all. But before drawing a nasty conclusion like sexism, one should have a firm basis of observed fact so that others can follow the factual observations and see how the conclusion of sexism was drawn. When I look at the factual observations here, sexism seems possible, but it is not the only plausible possibility by a long shot. This is especially true when one considers that the original poster and the rude guy had encountered each other before at political meetings.

This means the rudeness were most likely based on his observations of the original poster's previous behavior. This likely possibility would not justify the rudeness -- it just means that we are likely not dealing with a sexism problem here. I see nothing in any of the original poster's extensive posts to indicate that this likely possibility was considered.

The best anybody else seems to be able to say about this likely possibility is that the original poster seems nice and reasonable, so nobody could come to dislike her by merely observing her behavior. Of course, this reasoning is hogwash. I mean, there were people who disliked Ghandhi, for gosh sakes -- and it really didn't have anything to do with his gender -- it was more what he said and how he behaved at political meetings.

Not all rudeness is based on sexism. Whether sexism exists depends on the rude person's reason for being rude, not on the guesses of the victim of the rudeness.

[Kanary]

135. Gotcha, Karenina!

You said it better than I did. :toast:

As I said in another post to cally, I'm not replying to "dubious" because of any hope of getting through, but because, after discouraging experience here on DU, I find the awareness of women's issues dismal. I still have hope of some of these words getting through to some of the younger members, who have pooh-poohed the women's movement outright.

Of course, there's always the chance that my efforts are a waste of bandwidth, too. :) :hi:

Ladies high-five to ya.... :)

Kanary

Kucinich 2004!

[Ripley]

139. I would say "ditto" but that has a bad conotation here...

Agreed whole-heartedly....DU has an increasing number of posts attacking women in general that are allowed to stand.

Why? Reflection of our society and maybe, just maybe the reflection of...

Am I doomed?

[Jane Roe]

146. so you are pretty down with post #110? n/t

[noiretextatique]

133. what exactly does "unsubstantiated" mean to you?

this never fails to amaze me. if i, a black woman, say i was the victim of racial discrimination, some white person will inevitably claim that i wasn't, that i shouldn't say i was because it's "unsubstantiated," and i shouldn't make that kind of serious charge without proof, that i'm "screaming racism," etc, or they will tell me about being the only red-headed kid a summer camp...and so on.
so the question is who is qualified to substantiate charges of racism and sexism, if not those who experience it?

[DFLer4edu]

140. I agree

the person who is the victim of sexism or racism should be the judge of it. You are the judge of whether someone is discriminating against you. You are the judge of whether someone does something to you based on the color of your skin. But at the same time, I don't think I have any business making an accusation based on one incident, unless it is blatent(if it is blatent, than I would speak up), because people can be a jerk to you regardless of the color of your skin or whether you are a man or a women. If something occurs over and over, than I think it is substantiated (that is when I would say something). But if it happens to you, you are the judge.

[Jane Roe]

145. It is okay to make your own judgments

But there is such a thing as self-indulgence.

If we don't have enough good evidence to draw a conclusion of sexism or racism, then we should not draw it. This is a personal responsibility everybody should charge herself with regardless of her race or gender or other victim status.

Discussing suspicions of sexist or racist behavior (as suspicions!) is fine and can be politically helpful and personally therapeutic.

However, closing one's mind to the possibility that people act on motivations other than sexism or racism has clearly happened with some progressive minds. This closing of minds hurts, rather than helps, the progressive causes of gender equality and racial equality.

[noiretextatique]

155. "we" don't experience racial discrimination

by and large...unless "we" have been to japan. this is a part of the problem...the denial response. it's as much a part of the problem as discrimination itself. white people deny the experience of people of color, men deny the experience of women...it's all a part of the cycle. and yeah...i know it ALL VERY WELL after experiencing 45 years of "it." and, of course, it's not just me, as this thread illustrates. i've written about "it" in some of my poems, and it resonates with other people of color and women who have had the same experience. let's not pretend we live in a vacuum, shall we? thanks.

[Jane Roe]

158. I see:

You understand me, but I can never understand you.

I guess I have to go along with you here since I am clearly dealing with someone superior to me.

[noiretextatique]

159. isn't that what you have been doing to cally in this thread?

and if you care to share, i would love to hear about your experiences of racial/gender discrimination. i assume you must have had some, since you are clear about what is and is not "substantiated" from someone else's experience.

[Jane Roe]

161. You tell me, o superior one

[noiretextatique]

164. nice try...but you are the one who knows what cally experienced

so your tactic of playing the victim this late in the thread is transparent. as i thought: you are full of :hurts:
:nopity:

[Jane Roe]

168. I know what Cally experienced (and failed to experience)

because she wrote a post about it.

I know she had no way of knowing with any certainty what the apparently rude guy was thinking because Cally very forthrightly admitted that the apparently rude guy never explained his reasons for giving her the cold shoulder.

She is going to ask him. Then we will get to the bottom of this.

Hopefully, the apparently rude guy reads DU and will come forward on this thread. I think that is the most direct way to find out what his attitudes are and whether he is the really the sexist everyone seems to have concluded he is.

[cally]

177. I will not ask him

because I don't need someone else to validate my own experience. I will bring it up if I feel I will improve on his actions with others.

I know what I observed.

I hope you look at your own responses in this thread. You are showing much about your personality that you may not intend.

[Jane Roe]

179. Please ask him.

whether it is you or I who is wrong here, we really should get to the bottom of this. I respectfully implore you, ask him. I dare you, ask him. I mean what is the worst that could happen -- that you will be convinced the world isn't quite as sexist as you have currently concluded. That wouldn't be so bad, would it?

[noiretextatique]

180. if he said he was being sexist, would that substantiate her experience

enough for you? would he have to agree with her to provide substantiation? that really doesn't make much sense, if you think about it.

[noiretextatique]

178. well sure, "isms" are rude

and...do you think the guy will admit being a sexist, if he is one? do you think he will recognize that he is one? do you think a person who has comitted a sexist act will ADMIT it? perhaps.

and perhaps not. if that were the case all the time, we wouldn't need laws and courts and rulings that force have forced companies and individuals to change their sexist and racist policies,
practices, and behaviors.

on the other hand, if confronted with his behavior, perhaps this man will examine the root of it within himself. he might have just been rude, or he might be just acting within what is still the accepted behavior in this culture, so he may never see anything wrong with his behavior. if this was 1950, perhaps even cally wouldn't see anything wrong with his behavior either.

my point about none of us living in a vacuum...we do have common experiences of common "isms," as evidenced by some of the comments in this thread. and that is because "isms" are cultural/social phenonmena, as well as personal character flaws. therefore, when they manifest in people's experiences, they are not always about individuals, rude or not. sometimes they are reflections of whatever cultural consciousness we embrace, perhaps not even knowing we are doing so.

my father is an example. he is a sexist, but he is not a bad or rude person...he simply reflects the consciousness and attitudes of his time. he has grown over the years (with lots of prodding from me and my sisters) but until he was challenged, he didn't recognize that he had the choice to stop being a sexist...if you know what i mean. he thought it was set in stone...just the way things were. he hasn't changed that much, to be honest, but at least we got him to understand how damaging some of his negative beliefs about women could be to his granddaughters, and since he isn't a bad or rude guy...he could connect with that on a human level.

[Jane Roe]

182. I think you have not considered what the rude guy might say:

Possibility #1:

"You know I didn't mean to ignore you, Cally. It is just that we met on that other committee, but I haven't had the pleasure of meeting your husband. that is why I focused on him, because I already consider us old pals and compatriots in common causes. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings, I apologize profusely and I will take pains never to do that with you or anyone else."


Possibility #2:

"You know I used to listen to you speak at those committee meetings we attended. I think we have some very different ideas on politics and policy. I would love to debate all that with you sometime, but I thought the other night was not the right time or place for a debate. Even though I disagree with you on a lot of things, I do take you seriously and would love to have a vigorous discussion of politics over coffee at some point. Where and when would you like to do that? Feel free to bring your husband, but the focus will be on your opinions at this next proposed, more private meeting."


Note: either of these two explanations by the allegedly rude guy: (1) are plausible; and (2) would explain the behavior in non-sexist terms.

[noiretextatique]

how do you know what the guy "might" say?

and why is it even an issue? it seems to me the core issue is: is cally's account of HER EXPERIENCE reasonable? it seems to be that it is based on a few things:

1) i know cally to be a resonable woman from her posts here.
2) other women experience the same phenonmenon
3) cally's husband had the same view of the incident as she did...that's corroboration, not validation, btw.
4) given 1, 2, and 3...her version of events is perfectly plausible.

ergo...there is no need to seek substantiation from the guy in order to accept cally's version of events. unless of course you don't believe her to be resonable adult capable of interpreting her own life experience.

[noiretextatique]

189. how do you know what the guy "might" say?

and why is it even an issue? it seems to me the core issue is: is cally's account of HER EXPERIENCE reasonable? it seems to be that it is based on a few things:

1) i know cally to be a resonable woman from her posts here.
2) other women experience the same phenonmenon
3) cally's husband had the same view of the incident as she did...that's corroboration, not validation, btw.
4) given 1, 2, and 3...her version of events is perfectly plausible.

ergo...there is no need to seek substantiation from the guy in order to accept cally's version of events. unless of course you don't believe her to be resonable adult capable of interpreting her own life experience.

[DFLer4edu]

183. You missed my point

My point was that we should be careful about who we accuse and what we accuse them of. We should be very careful of what we accuse people of. But at the same time I don't think this type of behavior(sexism or racism) should be ignored. You are your best judge of what is happening to you. I can't judge whether what happened to Callie is sexism because I wasn't there. From what she tells us, I can't say, that wasn't sexism, but I can't say that it was either. Callie, on the other hand seems to have a pretty good feeling of what happens to her, as it happens to her. I also think(correct me if I'm wrong) that the post wasn't just about one guy. Regardless of whether this guy was being sexist, what she was talking about was a bigger problem. She wasn't just talking about the one occurrence, she was talking about it happening continually. I agree with you about not making unfounded accusations, but at the same time, I think some things it is your gut that tells you what is going on and who decides what a founded accusation is? If I were her(I'm not) I would ask him about the conversation and why he blocked her out, without mentioning sexism off the bat. The accusation that this guy is a sexist also makes me a bit uncomfortable. I would rather see it brought up as a discussion and not an accusation. You can encourage Callie to think about whether or not it was sexism or whether he just doesn't have good social skills. But as a whole, she is talking about something that happens over and over to her, and I can't say, that doesn't happen. She is the judge.

[oldcoot]

94. He needs to work on his people skills

I got the impression from the original post that this man wants a political career. If he is going be successful in politics, he needs to get over any issues that he might have whether he suffers from shyness, is a sexist pig, or is a rude jerk.

The fact that he was willing to talk to the Cally's husband, however, indicates that he was not shy. The fact that he ignored Cally indicates that he is either a sexist pig or a rude jerk. Although Cally's assumption about this guy's views of women may later prove incorrect, he did give her a reason to suspect that he was sexist.

Obviously, this man needs to work on his people skills if he wants any future in politics. He is going to need the help of loyal and dedicated campaign workers who are willing to sacrifice their valuable time to help him get elected. If he had been nicer to Cally, she might have been willing to work on his campaign. Instead, his rude behavior (whether he is a sexist or not) cost him her support. If he continues to behave this way, very few people will want to work on his campaign. Why put up with rude and inconsiderate jerks if you don't have to?

He also must convince voters that he deserves their votes. While hardcore Democratic voters might vote for him simply because he is a Democrat, he still is going to need the support of independent voters and first impressions are very important. If he is rude to potential voters, they are not going to vote for him.

[Kanary]

97. I hope you're right, that his support will suffer

Unfortunately, what I've learned here is that there are increasing numbers of people who think rudenss is somehow "charming" and are attracted to it. I guess it's some sort of protection device.

It's not the same world it used to be, and the rules seem to be changing. Not for the good.

I do hope he learns that his crudeness will equate to a loss of votes. I'm not overly optomistic.

Kanary

[LeahMira]

82. It would be nice...

... if now that you have mentioned it to him, your husband would be more aware of this when it happens and direct the other person to speak with you, but there's nothing to stop you from speaking up. Just let your husband know beforehand that you are going to do that, as you would want to know if he were to do the same kind of thing.

[SOteric]

104. Ask him.

I'm perfectly serious.

You have a legitimate interaction issue with him. You represent a member of a group any sensible politician would be interested in cultivating. Find an informal setting and some professional, non-confrontational way to tell him how you've been feeling and ask him why he does this and whether it's just you or all the women with whom he's acquainted.

[cally]

106. I very well might

I first met this man years ago when I was working with his wife at a local school. We had formed a group to try to get the school to adopt a curriculum to teach more tolerance in the school. We do not have a history of dislike for each other if anyone wants to jump to that conclusion next.

[Ripley]

119. Cally, I understand your situation.

I've been there too...very similar to what you are talking about.

And it is not that easy to do as that person says...

Nowadays I often find that if I even bring up the subject that I feel like I'm being treated in a different manner and I get responses like:

"Oh yeah, let's give women preferential treatment..."

"Whining crybaby women can't take the heat of a man's world..."

"Women are too emotional to be involved in politics..."

Good luck with however you decide to approach the man in question if it is important to you.

[Kanary]

123. Right on target, Ripley!

Those are the confrontational stoppers aimed at us. Put us on the defensive, rather than to actually listen. Bear any resemblance to tactics of some group we are all familiar with?

I'm glad you posted this, because it illustrates just what we are up against.

Kanary, who also thinks "Get a sense of humor, lady" belongs on the same list

Kucinich 2004!

[Ripley]

126. Yup.

That kills me...the "we don't have humor" thing...isn't it a kick when you make jokes at the expense of men's body parts they sing a different tune?

Off topic...Kanary...your yellow sig line is hurting my eyes...I love the text but can you make it darker?

[Desertrose]

107. I agree...take your power and ask him.....

in a nonconfrontational way...know that you have every right to ask this, claim your power & just ask him. Perhaps word it as to simply make him aware that he does this...maybe he isn't even conscious that he does it...but yeah, you go girl.
ya want answers?? ask the questions.

Peace & power!!
DR

[Kanary]

115. Ask the questions

But don't necesarily expect an honest answer.

Probably most people don't know themselves well enough to be able to look inward and assess new information.

Most likely, it will be a defensive answer.

That doesn't mean going into it expecting that, it means being prepared for that.

Kanary

Kucinich 2004!

[Desertrose]

122. often times the manner of the reply

gives you as much or more information than the actual words of the reply....

....simply ask without being attached to the outcome...good point.(I usually do that as a matter of course)

You are right that most are not always conscious of their actions and responses.....

Peace
DR

[noiretextatique]

130. i agree...call him to task

he's probably not even aware he does it, but he should be made aware. i've had to do this with my father. in his case, he was rarely challenged by anyone in our household, so he felt free to sound like a sexist jerk. after 35 years of putting up with his BS, i finally told him where the cow ate the cabbage. yeah...he respects me now...and he keeps his sexist comments to himself.

[Kanary]

138. speaking up is often harder in the family, eh?

Good for you! It took me lots of years with my dad, too, only it was more serious than sexist comments. Amazing how freeing that can be.

I did the same with a neighbor from the south... very racist, and free use of the "n" word, which I just can't somach. I finally told her that I can't change her mind, but I don't want to hear the words, and to refrain from using it in my presence. Worked, and made me wish I had done it lots sooner. Our complicity with these things is hard to shake, but a sign of our courage.

Kanary

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Desertrose]

112. why let them get away with it?

why not ask a simple question and put them on the spot for a change? why must the women have to deal with it...let the guy deal with things for a change.
LOL
Peace
DR

[geniph]

129. I hate when that happens

but I've noticed that as I've gotten older, it happens less and less often. In our caucuses last weekend, the whole table unanimously elected me precinct caucus chair without my having even asked for it, and the entire assembly listened attentively to my speech about the candidates and then applauded enthusiastically. My husband was with me, too, but no one turned to him to "interpret" or "complete" anything I'd said. That did happen to me sometimes when I was younger, but I guess I give off more confident vibes or something now that I'm middle-aged. Maybe it's because I'm not young and cute anymore - I used to look much younger than I was, so I think some people would discount my opinion based on that. I no longer look younger than I am, which is a bummer, but it does have its benefits.

[Piperay]

137. This happens to older people too

I noticed this happening with my aunt and my father (who are in their 80's), when I have been with them all the conversation is directed to me and I am expected to answer for them! Really pisses me off, both my aunt and father are perfectly capable of making responses themselves but the person turns toward me like I should answer for them. When this happens, I just stand there like a 'stump' making no response and the person is 'stuck' with having to get a response from one of them. Doesn't give a person a good feeling about what happens to you when you get older. :argh: :-(

[RandomKoolzip]

152. I have a story....

My wife and I were in couples therapy and she was getting angry at me after the meetings were over because she said that I was "dominating" the discussion. I didn't realize it, but I said, "okay," and made a concious decision that the next few meetings, I'd let her take the reins. Now, my wife is pretty shy, and I'm a garrulous kind of guy, especially when I'm talking about my problems (I have a lot of them.) So, the next therapy session comes around, and I purposefully lay back, and let her answer the therapist's questions.

He asks the first question.

Silence. For over a minute. She's thinking.....Then, a monosyllabic response. Then, another question from the therapist.

Two minutes of silence. She seems kinda scared to talk. She turns to me as if to say, what are your feelings here? I don't say anything, because I want her to express herelf. So, I say nothing.

Two more minutes of awkward silence.

We're getting nowhere. Mind you, these sessions are only an hour long and I'm paying 100 bucks EACH for them. And neither of us makes very much money.

The entire meeting, this happens. Question, then silence for a LONG time, then a "blocking," uncommunicative response from my wife. She's afraid to talk, but continually begging me with her eyes to pitch in and contribute, even though she had complained in the past of me dominating things!

So, this entire session, nothing got discussed and she refused to contribute anything besides a few mumbled, awkward responses. But, still, I made a decision to let her take control and I stuck with it. And look what happened! I'm not saying that I SHOULD have been running roughshod over her in these sessions, but she REALLY should have contributed better if her complaint was that she wasn't being heard. So....what should I have done?

When we're in public it's different; she's obviously the smarter of the two of us, and her demeanor screams "intimidatingly intelligent," so when people come up to us and want to talk, they always approach her first. And they NEVER talk over her or interrupt her when she's talking, because she calls them on it. I'm more of a doormat when it comes to that stuff. I like to talk, but I'm not very assertive and I let people (Men AND women) butt in and take control of the conversation. As a guy who (possibly naively) thinks he's in tune with women and the women's movement (I was in a riot grrrrl band, I'm very supportive of women's rights, and I've read bell hooks, and Susan Faludi, and try NOT to be a sexist bastard as much as I can) I still say that for men, it's "damned if you do and damned if you don't." Even if men try to do as much as they can to accomodate women and even the playing field, they STILL are gonna get accused of being sexist for things that had no concious idea thay were doing. This is to be expected, and Men, sorry, but it's gonna happen and you're gonna have to deal with it. And Women, men are gonna do things you will construe as sexism, even if that's not their intent. Messages sent are as often as not the messages received, and humans are abvout as adept at communicating across gender (and racial, and age, and regional....) lines as monkeys with typewriters. There was some study a couple years ago thgat was reported on DateLine or one of those shows, where they asked blacks and whites what bugged them about the other race. One of the top complaints from black women was that they hated it when white women "flipped their hair." That's right! It just boiled their blood to see a white girl casually, thoughtlessly, move their hair out of the way with their hand. So....should white women be more concious of how much it hurts black women's feelings when they make a hair flipping gesture? I don't know. But, when you really come down to it, humans are going to be doing things to piss of other humans until the end of time, whether we know we're doing it or not....and the best we can do is become conscious of it, and try our best NOT to hurt each other. ALL of us are fallible, both men and women, and we are capable of performing some of the most amazingly offensive deeds without our even knowing it. Just look at Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, et al. Sometimes I think the entire history of the human race, when it finally gets written down, is just going to be one recalled incident of someone hurting another's feelings after another for thousands of pages; a compendium of misunderstandings.

We've got a LONG way to go.

[Jane Roe]

153. Yawn, superf**kin' yawn . . .

just kidding actually. A little riot g**l humor, there.

I can definitely relate to your story -- I think it nicely shows that people act in nice, not nice and even morally-neutral ways based on lots of other things besides gender. You seem quite sensitive to and sensible about both sexist and non-sexist motivations in others. Way to, like, be!

[Jose Diablo]

156. I carry this baggage of a lifetime of ideas

please forgive me. I will try to do better. I know we are equals, fact is you are my better. I try though, does that count?

Signed

A man

[phrenzy]

167. Am I sexist?

I am talking to two WOMEN - Susan and Jane.

Susan is talking to me and making points and discussing politics.

Jane is just standing there nodding, looking authoritative and confident.

Susan is kind of annoying to me and I don't think she is really articulating her points well, and well, for some reason she just isn't engaging.

I ask Jane what SHE thinks and we start talking. I like talking to Jane. She holds my attention and I feel comfortable.
.
.
.
Am I sexist?

[Jane Roe]

170. we cannot know until we know what Susan thinks

If Susan thinks you are sexist, then you are.

If Susan perceives your cold shoulder as coming from some other motivation, then you are off the hook.

Susan, and only Susan, can decide this and nobody can second guess her or question whether her judgments are responsible because this is called "blaming the victim."

At least that is how I understand it to work from this thread.

[Pithlet]

185. That's the way you understand it

because you are reading this thread and responding from a very defensive viewpoint. That is not how I read this thread at all.

[noiretextatique]

181. no

what's your point?

[sherifffruitfly]

174. lol

congratulations - you've discovered sexism...

to answer the question head on - most of the girls i've known were both disinclined and unable to speak intelligently about politics along with many other topics.

The only time I've consistently had the contrary experience was while i was doing my Ph.D. work.

lol - be careful with retorts - I made no claim or suggestion that women are intrinsically unable to think/talk about such issues. I did suggest, however, that the vast majority of girls are currently in fact so disabled.

lol - it also happens to be true of most boys.....

lol - discovering sexism... that's awesome...

cdj

[Pithlet]

184. vast majority?

lol-I think you just proved the point of the thread.

[Pithlet]

190. I think you have your answer

from some of the responses on this thread. I know I'll get flamed for saying so, but many of the responses are exactly why attitudes aren't changing.

It seems to me that every time sexism is brought up here at DU, it always gets the same responses. Words like "victim mentality" are thrown around. Many respond with "well, it happens to me, and I'm a man". And you can always count on the good ol' "maybe it's you" stand by. They're all typical, reactive, and defensive.

People don't like to be confronted with their own prejudices, and rather than facing them, want to pretend that the problem doesn't exist. There is no racism. There is no sexism. Those are all problems of the past. Women and minorities just need to get over it. And it always appalls me to see it right here on DU, which is supposed to be for progressives. I find it ironic that many who are accusing you of jumping to conclusions are doing that very thing here.

To me, instead of jumping to the defensive, and assuming that someone who is talking about the prejudices is just overreacting, or making baseless accusations, maybe it's time for some here to really evaluate how they think of these issues.

For all of you here who have reacted the way I'm talking about, do you really think that the problem of sexism no longer exists? That most people think that men and women are equal? That there aren't many, both men and women, who discount what someone has to say because of ingrained prejudices?

[spooky3]

193. great post