contributed stories
up to the minute coverage of the issues and protests.

publish your stuff
instantly upload your audio, video, photo or text directly from your browser

story administration
linking, editing and deleting stories

help with multimedia
How to hear the sounds and see the videos.

Get involved
global organising resources & processes

Global indymedia:

www.indymedia.org

Projects
climate
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa
ambazonia
nigeria
south africa

Canada
alberta
hamilton
maritimes
montreal
ontario
ottawa
quebec
thunder bay
vancouver
victoria
windsor

East Asia
japan

Europe
athens
austria
barcelona
belgium
bristol
cyprus
euskal herria
finland
galiza
germany
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
lille
madrid
nantes
netherlands
nice
norway
paris
poland
portugal
prague
russia
sweden
switzerland
thessaloniki
united kingdom
west vlaanderen

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
brasil
chiapas
chile
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
qollasuyu
rosario
sonora
tijuana
uruguay

Pacific
adelaide
aotearoa
brisbane
jakarta
melbourne
perth
sydney

South Asia
india
mumbai

United States
arizona
arkansas
atlanta
austin
baltimore
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
danbury, ct
dc
hawaii
houston
idaho
ithaca
la
madison
maine
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new jersey
new mexico
north carolina
north texas
ny capital
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rocky mountain
rogue valley
san diego
san francisco bay area
santa cruz, ca
seattle
st louis
tallahassee-red hills
urbana-champaign
utah
vermont
western mass

West Asia
beirut
israel
palestine

Process
discussion
fbi/legal updates
indymedia faq
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech
volunteer

Older docs
Initial Charter of global Network

This site is ONLY for stories about Indymedia ITSELF! Go to www.indymedia.org for the "global" news site.

Please contribute your views to the future of independent open media - this is forum for how international IMCs work together.

webcast news


contribute an article | administration

email this story | download as PDF | An open letter to other men in the movement: by Dan Spalding 9:06am Sat Dec 14 '02 (Modified on 3:57am Mon Jan 6 '03) article#779 SHUT THE FUCK UP or, How to act better in meetings "Even with my mask I often spoke the tyranny of power. My first duty was to cultivate a revolutionary silence." -Subcomandante Marcos Introduction Being an activist these days means fighting for a thousand different things - indigenous rights, rainforests, corporate accountability, etc. Despite this diversity of campaigns, there seems to be some agreement on the kind of society we want to create. It’s a society that isn’t based on white supremacy, class exploitation, or patriarchy. This essay is about how men act in meetings. Mostly it's about how we act badly, but it includes suggestions on how we can do better. Men in the movement reproduce patriarchy within the movement and benefit from it. By patriarchy I mean a system of values, behaviors, and relationships that keeps men in power. It relies on domination, claiming authority, and belligerence. By the movement I mean the anti-corporate globalization movement in the US I am a part of. I think people organizing for affordable housing, against police brutality, for the rights of immigrants (for example) are also fighting the same system that's wringing the blood out of the bottom 99 percent of the world's population and the environment they live in. However, I don't know from my experience if the men who organize around those issues act the way the men in the movement do. Just to be clear, those men are almost always white and from middle-class or wealthier backgrounds. In my experience, as someone who identifies as a man of color, men of color dominate meetings in basically the exact same way. But I find that men who do not speak English fluently tend not to do so as much. I wish I could think of more exceptions. Who cares about meetings? Good question. Most meetings of large-ish organizations (of more than 30 people or so) I’ve been to don’t amount to too much. The real work - doing research, getting people involved, organizing protests and actions, fundraising, media stuff - gets done by working groups or individuals. Meetings are just about a lot of talking, right? Well, yes and no. At worst meetings force a lot of people to get together and generally discuss everything that's been done, everything that's going on, and everything that needs to be done. These meetings tend to wander a lot. Responsibility is not clearly delegated, decisions aren't made overtly, and the organization isn't more focused afterwards than before. At the same time, there’s heated arguments over seemingly trivial things, or hurtful criticism of individuals. But those arguments and criticisms don’t amount to too much in the end. But a good meeting is a different animal altogether. With good self-facilitation and a good facilitator (or two, or three...), everyone contributes to the meeting, without anyone taking control over it. People make constructive criticism, and try to incorporate concerns raised into their proposals. And since everyone gets to contribute their ideas into the decision-making process, the decisions are not only the best possible ones - but also the ones people are most invested in. Since everyone feels ownership over the decisions, people are more likely to take on responsibility for projects. If you're serious about using consensus, you have to care about meetings. That's the only place a group can democratically decide what to do and how to do it. The alternative is an informal group of the most influential and forceful members (who dominate discussion) making the big decisions. It's not just how often you talk, but how and when Consensus decision making is a model of the society we want to live in, and a tool we use to get there. Men often dominate consensus at the expense of everyone else. Think about the man who... * Speaks for a long, loud, first and often * Offers his opinion immediately whenever someone makes a proposal, asks a question, or if there's a lull in discussion * Speaks with too much authority: "Actually, it's like this…" * Can't amend a proposal or idea he disagrees with, but trashes it instead * Makes faces every time someone says something he disagrees with * Rephrases everything a woman says, as in, "I think what Mary was trying to say is..." *Makes a proposal, then responds to each and every question and criticism of it - thus speaking as often as everyone else put together (Note: This man often ends up being the facilitator) And don't get me started about the bad male facilitator who…: * Always puts himself first on stack, because he can * Somehow never sees the women with their hands up, and never encourages people who haven't spoken It's rarely just one man who exhibits every problem trait. Instead it’s two or three competing to do all the above. But the result is the same: everyone who can't (or won't) compete on these terms - talking long, loud, first and often - gets drowned out. This is a result of society’s programming. Almost no men can actually live up to our culture's fucked up standards of masculinity. And our society has standards for women that are equally ridiculous. In one way, we both suffer equally. That's why we all yearn and strive for a world where these standards - which serve to divide us and reduce us and prop up those in control - are destroyed. In another way these standards serve those who come closest to living up to them. Sure, we all lose when a few men dominate a meeting. But it’s those men who get to make decisions, take credit for the work everyone does, and come out feeling more inspired and confident. But I can't be sexist - I'm a hippie Oh, but you can. The irony is that you can basically do all the things listed above, even if you don't fit the stereotype of the big strapping man. I've seen hippies, men who would be described as feminine, queer men, and others who in many ways go against the grain not go against the grain at all when it comes to dominating discussion. A hippie might speak slowly and use hippie slang, but still speak as the voice of authority, and cut off the woman who was speaking before him. A man who some might call feminine can still make a face like he smelled something when someone he doesn’t respect says something he disagrees with, thus telling her to shut up; he may also politely but consistently put himself on stack every time someone criticizes his proposal. So shut the fuck up already What’s to be done? I’ve come up with a little idea I like to call, "Shut the fuck up." It goes as follows: Every time someone... * Says something you think is irrelevant, * Asks a (seemingly) obvious question, * Criticizes your proposal or makes a contradictory observation, * Makes a proposal * Asks a question, or * Asks for more input because there’s a brief lull in the discussion. . . Shut the fuck up. It’s a radical process, but I think you’ll like it. Since my childhood, I was raised by my parents and by every teacher I ever had in school to demand as much attention as possible. In class I spoke more often than almost anyone else I knew. Surprisingly enough, some of my teachers were annoyed with me. But while they may have counseled me to raise my hand first, they never asked me to speak less or listen more. As a result I probably got twice as much attention from my teachers, measured in time spent with me, than most of the other kids I went to school with. But a mere 15 years after I started learning to exhibit almost all the dominating male behavior I list above, something happened. I was in a class with a friend of mine. Let's call her Anne, because that’s her name. Anne and I were in the same study group, and the night before she had gone over the exact question the professor was now asking. However, Anne wasn’t answering, even though the rest of the class was silent. I don't know what struck me to actually stop and think instead of answering the question myself, as I was wont to do. That incident got me thinking about who spoke most often in class, why, and what I could do. The answers to the first two questions I’ve basically given already. The third is a little trickier. What else can we do? Lucky for us, being a man gives us a lot of authority. I mean that in a good way, too. Much like people of color are always assumed to be selfish or paranoid when they speak out against racial profiling, women are often assumed to be bitchy when they call out patriarchal behavior. What does that mean for us? First, we shut the fuck up. This was easy for me in school - I just made a rule that I never spoke more than twice in a 50 minute class. Surprise! Almost every time I would have spoken, someone else eventually said the exact same thing, or something smarter. It was frustrating when it was another obnoxious man doing the answering, but a lot of times it wasn’t one of the two guys in class who spoke most often. The problem is that the classroom is designed to have one person in charge, and it ain't the student. While you could point out problem behavior in class, there’s not a lot of 'space' for it - it's not expected or encouraged, and would probably be dismissed by the professor. The beauty of consensus is the facilitation. Not only can we facilitate ourselves - and we should - but we can facilitate each other. This is mainly the job of the person chosen to be the facilitator. But when the facilitator is ignoring problem behavior - or exhibiting it - it's easy for other people in the group to guerrilla facilitate.’ Sometimes it's as easy as pointing out the people who have their hands up, but are somehow missed by the facilitator, or by suggesting straw polls or go 'rounds or other tools that get everyone involved. But it's usually not that easy. The worse the pattern of behavior in the group, the more natural the fucked-upedness will seem. And you'll often be given the evil eye by the people you're calling out, if not a verbal backlash. And finally, it's obviously not the job of the people most trampled on by patriarchal behavior to always be calling it out. That's where we come in. We are, at least at first, given the most respect when we call out bad behavior. The problem is doing the calling out in a constructive way. It's all too easy to call people out in a hurtful and authoritarian fashion - thus entertaining everyone with your unintended irony, but also acting the exact way you don’t want others to. When you call people out in a way that's hurtful instead of constructive, it still tends to keep the quietest people at a meeting from participating. The solution So call people out, but try not to be too personal about it. Unless it’s outrageous, wait until the person is finished, and then make your process point about how people should stick to stack, or consider not talking if they’ve just spoken, or whatever. And if it seems someone's pissed off at your calling them out (and white men make it real easy for you to tell if they're pissed off), make the effort to talk to him after the meeting is over. It usually doesn't take much to smooth ruffled feathers. Unfortunately, it also doesn't take much for those same people to do the exact same thing the next meeting. So while part of the answer is self-facilitation and facilitating others, another part is also giving everyone the skills and confidence they need to assert their place in the meeting. This means having regular workshops, for new and experienced activists, on how consensus is supposed to work. It also means going through the formal process of consensus and explaining it during meetings. You can do it quickly, especially after the first few times. But when people assume that everyone is familiar with the process, those who are least confident (but still have good ideas) will be the first to drop out of discussions. Meanwhile, other people who think they know the process but don't tend to hold things up. I'll let you guess what I think the gender breakdown of those groups is. Another key ingredient is talking to individuals outside of meetings. Talking honestly - "I know you care about the group, but in meetings it seems like you talk down to anyone who disagrees with you, and you cut people off a lot, and that makes it really hard for other people to participate" - is a big part of it. And as with any interaction, you have to keep an open mind to hear their perspective. Ideally, you could resolve things at this level and not have to bring things up before the group. But it's still a good idea to come up with a structure to address the way people act badly in meetings, for people to regularly "check in" with how they feel the process is going. It also makes it easier for people who wouldn't normally criticize others to do so constructively. The structure could mean that once every two months the group has a "process" meeting, where the focus is on how people act in meetings, working groups, etc. It's often easier and 'safer' for people to call out problem behavior, and easier and 'safer' for the culprits to own up to it and ask for constructive criticism. Finally, it means constantly thinking about how we, as men, tend to dominate and control the world around us. To me this is most apparent (at least in other people) in meetings. To me, that's also where it's easiest to address. This is a continuous process. We have to always read about this, talk about it, inquire into how others address it, come up with creative and successful solutions, and apply them. But no matter where we take it, I think this struggle always starts with shutting the fuck up. As men, we’re encouraged to dominate conversation without even thinking about it. It’s too easy for us to do really good work - fighting genetic engineering, tearing down the prison industrial complex, freeing Mumia - and still act exactly like the frat boy next door. We have to confront each other and ourselves so that domination stops seeming natural, and so we can start doing something about it. So the next time you don't think about how you're talking, please think about how you’re talking. And the bonus section…... But I can't let a girl do this -I mean, I'm the only one who knows how Shut the heck up! Sharing responsibility for projects is fundamental for ensuring that everyone in the group develops skills and confidence. I'll give credit where it's due: We men are pretty good at letting women bottomline work like child care, note taking, food prep... But we rarely have structures to let women take on our responsibilities. In your meetings, are women taking on projects in proportion to their numbers? If you're not paying attention, you should be. Along with consensus, sharing work is one of the hallmarks of democratic organizing. In my experience the most prestigious, challenging, and rewarding work belongs to men. Often, it belongs to the same men who dominate the meetings where these tasks are ostensibly delegated. One way men make work theirs (in the worst way) is by hoarding information around it. What work has been done? What's left to do? What are the priorities? The deadlines? If the work is done informally, not only is there no accountability for it getting done, but there are also no records and no regular updates. This makes it almost impossible to pass on responsibility for the project to someone else - unless you're setting them up for failure. Another problem is contacts. Somehow it seems that long time organizers tend to all know each other. If there’s a problem they can just call each other up. This isn't just intimidating for people lower on the activist totem pole; it makes it that much harder for them to get the same work done. If we pretend our contacts are just friends, instead of people we rely on to get work done, the group at the top will stay there. And I think that group is almost all male. Finally, there's language. Experts in the capitalist world tend to mystify their work. Whether it’s "move to demur," "updating the HTML," or "within the confines of this narrative," professionals have a vested interest in making their work sound as obscure and difficult as possible. Professionals in our society own the little part of the world they have "expertise" over. They make decisions that affect everyone, and get more control and authority as time goes on. Sound familiar? All these factors - hoarding information, exclusive contacts, mystifying language - get even worse during a crisis. In the middle of an action it's easy to say, "There's no time to teach anyone new, men or women, how to work the radios." First, that's usually a group of men speaking. Second, that's why you have start before the action. If the problem is just a few big egos and a lot of people's complicity, then you can delegate immediately. If there's more at work, you have to set up a structure so folks outside the de facto leadership meaningfully take on projects. That structure can include documenting steps and information, helping new people develop working relationships with other organizers, using everyday language instead of bullshit acronyms, and so on. But without a process it's much more difficult to pass on that responsibility. And who do you think you'll be passing it on to? (freely inspired by Jo Freeman's "The Tyranny of Structurelessness.") Epilogue This essay came out of my frustration with the male domination in meetings in this movement and the absence of men's efforts to change it. It also came out of my need for self-reflection. This will ideally lead not just to all men acting exactly like I think they should, but also a lasting dialog on how we behave in meetings and what we can do about it. If you have any thoughts on what I've written, please contact me and tell me what you think dan@midnightspecial.net. This isn't a declaration of war; it's just a starting point. Time for me to shut the fuck up. dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=3... Make a quick comment on this article. your name your email (optional) comment heading comment add your own longer comments (including web links and multimedia uploads) Make a rating on this article. select a rating Average OK Good stuff Recommended Excellent

Or Matriarchu either. by Big Bad Wolf 11:49am Sat Dec 14 '02 (Modified on 6:57am Sun Dec 15 '02) comment#780 After several decades of watching the activist movements in various countries and around many issues, from the life and death movements to the purely aesthetic protests, I've come to feel the need to resist all forms of domination even by those with the best of intentions. I think we seldom progress at the short end of a stick. Yes, seat belts are a good thing and cruelty to animals is also helped by legislation with its implied threats.. But to achieve anything of lasting value means we have to fundamentally transform the culture that produces the behavior we don't like. And that means voluntarily giving up our own skill at manipulating or coercing each other. Yes, even with the best of intentions.That is why we are now entering a global conflict between not just financially driven resource machinery ala WTO, World Bank, etc., but more importantly the cultural, social, and humanitarian perspective with which we view the notion of decency toward our struggling and flawed fellow human beings. All of the terms used in the article relate to the values of cultures which are becoming blurred, soft, and integrating around the edges. The dominant families and religious value systems which drive their interests are upheld not just be men or women, but ALWAYS by both. The current struggles are always for the cultural control of the young. Now the battle is for the global young. If using the young for burnt offerings in war or in the resistance to assault were strictly a patriarchal activity, then the article would be right on. But countries are run by families of men and women. The women in these families are not just silent breeding stock as some would have us believe. and are prominently fely in pressure groups of all shapes. The vast wealth of the U.S. is predominantly owned by women, but managed by men as a natural effect of aging trends and male mortality rates. The overwhelming plurality of males in this culture have zip for power. What you are seeing at meetings is a combination of powerless men trying to live up to some cultural assumption that men should be assertive, andthat the best 'qualified' should be acquiesced to. I realize the author is engaging in hyperbolic overkill in suggesting men shut the fuck up, (and I've often in moments of silent screaming wanted to suggest to colleagues that they follow that advice), but I know that the travail of the meeting still connotes input, and better that than a clever 'leader' or cabal simply ruling by stealth or decree. That's why the indymedia is such a valuable tool . It is relatively important today, but will become increasingly so in the days ahead as the cultural warriors of the 'fundy' stripe try to polarize us and force us all to choose sides in a mutually destructive and ultimately lose-lose scenario. But it will be ours and our childrens blood that they want, not our pain. Already people are being divided up into various oppositions by the clever and sometimes brutal use of misinformation, violence, and cultural propaganda. My area is propaganda. An so I focus on the perception of how we view each other as neighbors, brothers and sisters, and sojourners on this sad and lovely little planet. Patriarchy, matriarchy, oligarchy, anarchy etc. are all methods of determining the relationship between subserviant and dominant, the quotidian and the opinions leaders, the spactacle and the anarchist of the heart and mind. Our problem is never the leaders, it is always the uncritical followers. When I go into the operating room to have my appendix out, I want a certificate on the wall that says ' THIS DOCTOR KNOWS WHERE YOUR APPENDIX IS'. That is just a normative need to have a society. But when the doctor puts down the scalpel and comes to a meeting they are no longer in charge.We are no longer in their operating space. We all have to be taught that reality, in opposition to the standard teaching of our cultural spectacle. The doc is just a citizen like us and farts, and belches, and pukes, and cries and can be wrong just like we are. The same is to be said for every other leader, teacher, master, priest, rabbi, guru, or employer. Only we the representative of both our values as to life and death, AND as to the triviality of the color of our hair. We have to assert that we have a right to trust our own judgement, go our own way, and be allowed to say yes to life on this planet with our own means of expression, and not feel intimidated by massive propaganda campaigns from intstitutions who we often pay to 'inform' us. Secrecy in an information age is the key to power, and too dangerous a commodity to be allowed in the hands of anyone but us, the people, the ones who make the spactacle work, the ones who will have to bleed if we follow the polarizers, the narrowly ambitious, and the adventurers who only participate for the adrenalin rush. Being a citizen, and neighbor, and a brother/sister is serious business. So I would encourage the men not to merely shut the fuck up, but to examine the expectations of men and suprise us with decency, creativity, and a sense of humor. I have failed at this an incalculable number of times in my life as we all have. At that next meeting adopt some effective facilitating principles, encourage input, and don't let the cultural warfare polarize us against ourselves. I'm afraid we're the answer as well the question. Besides. What else is there to do in saying yes to life? Any way of saying yes is better than any way of saying no. Make a rating on this comment. select a rating Average OK Good stuff Recommended Excellent

the question is... by the question 4:01am Sun Dec 15 '02 (Modified on 6:58am Sun Dec 15 '02) comment#781 user-contributed rating of Good stuff the question is, how can you change the world and the people in it if you are so abusive and actually believe that you can convince someone by telling them to 'SHUT THE FUCK UP'! I am sure you mean well in writing this, but your approach is not just ineffective but, worse, counter-productive and is typical of why the Left cannot communicate with regular folks. not only is it unecessarily rude it pisses people off that need to hear it the most. which, i think is your point - not to solve a problem (that we all have) but to inflame it and harrass people so that they feel uncomfortable and fearful - this is a tragedy. Your strategy for social change is to attack your comrades at a time when we ALL need more solidarity. It is this kind of Political Correctness that makes it impossible for average people to feel welcome in the Left and why we are so easily made the butt of jokes. It is this kind of Political Correctness that makes a movement common people impossible. If the Left cannot be open and inclusive, then people will gravitate towards the Right. This is the fault of writers of rantslike the one posted here. it is a shame. there is much opportunity in this world to make positive change but some in the movement get their jollies by dragging people down into the never ending quagmire of Political Correctness. Make a rating on this comment. select a rating Average OK Good stuff Recommended Excellent

women jerks. by ANONYMOUS 6:49am Sun Dec 15 '02 comment#782 I think you've written a good article. But it does not reflect the bullshit that women can come up with, or the nasty underhanded ways they respond to the behavior you describe. Like: gossipping without cause or facts, feeling helpless and angry and then powerless to demand or implement change, nitpicking things to death without giving the affected party a chance to defend, politicking for destruction, undermining the authority which is necessary for a group if she doesn't get to play Goddess today, hyper-feminism, illogical associations or the lack of perception as to the logical basis for reality, mean-ness, meakness which is really not necessary or called for, a quiet shy "innocent little me" attitude while she's destroying everything in sight, lesbian jealousy of men, lesbian destruction of men who compete with them for the women, lesbian dishonesty while undermining the sexual attraction of men to women, living as if their mother was watching every move, etc. etc. In civil disobedience groups I've seen, the jerky men you describe were largely associated with the government and its informants trying to screw us over, not with the guys who got arrested and went to jail. Not that your perceptions aren't correct as to everyone concerned. By the way, in the 70's, the percentage of men:women actually spending time in jail was about 50:2. Give credit where credit is due. Categories where men and women are largely equal?: honesty/lying, desire to help, and willingness to sacrifice. Other categories are more mixed. Make a rating on this comment. select a rating Average OK Good stuff Recommended Excellent

How to act by Ilyan 10:51am Wed Dec 18 '02 comment#787 I hear some feminists bellowing about the oppression built into this society who never think to what extent this is a Matriarchy that manufactures its men. And there are plenty of men shattered by Matriarchs. Do not be a Patriarch, or a Matriarch, be an Anarchist and keep the size of the meetings below a dozen, and learn how not to need a facilitator. And if someone asks lots of questions, do not think that person has had their say. Remember to make space for their conclusion. Any bloody fool can have opinions and anwers, the difficult part is asking the right question. Make a rating on this comment. select a rating Average OK Good stuff Recommended Excellent

on the trollbait comments here by wrench 7:32am Fri Dec 20 '02 comment#789 wrench@rochesterhope.org I support the article. I talk a lot, and started censoring myself a lot. By keeping my ideas short and to the goddamn point, I felt I contributed rather than took away from the meetings. I highly doubt any of these comments are made by real activists, I sincerely hope not. I'm a white man, or at least I like to think I am. I respect other opinions before my own because I know my opinion is probably heard 90% of the time thanks to other assholes like myself who don't keep their mouth shut. Bravo on the article. Make a rating on this comment. select a rating Average OK Good stuff Recommended Excellent

The problem is... by mr invisible 3:57am Mon Jan 6 '03 comment#814 I'll admit I'm a pretty bad offender for over-yakking at meetings... (Although I believe I'm not sexist about it, most of the women I know who would tear my throat out for trying to be!!!) The problem is, we've learned to be loud by virtue of being activists. It's sort of our job to be loud. The trick is , I guess to learn to occasionally turn down the volume and listen. The revolutionary silence I guess. Make a rating on this comment. select a rating Average OK Good stuff Recommended Excellent