Many thanks for your calm and logical reaction to my suggesting that there is a diversity problem in regards to women here. Often, when someone raises the diversity question, one of the reactions of the organization or group is to specifically clam up on such stats. So, a brave gesture to put out the stats as you did, and confess there are some flaws.

As I suggested, I have felt a lot of welcoming and respect from the leaders here at Green Party Watch. And, on a scale of 1 to 10 in the world, I think GPW is about an 8 or 9 for being woman-friendly/inviting/useful. But, I was hoping for a 10. And, also hoping that some of the folks in the circle who have traces of sexism/patriarchy might learn and grow and become even more welcoming and aware.

There is a lot of patriarchy in the Green Party itself which goes unaware. And, some of it is the subtle things – the hierarchy even more than how many women are at the top of the hierarchy; the assumption that “professional” is a desirable value, when professional is a part of our corporate/patriarchal/wounded culture; the attitude that each group may judge each other group and make public pronouncements about their failure and success, etc.

But, since we got on the subject, maybe it would be interesting to make one small push of an effort to get this venue to be more woman friendly. I mean, thinking outside the box, and having a real commitment to the idea of participatory democracy, that women–even if they are shy or reluctant–deserve and should be part of creating the political universe. So, people should go out of their way to beg, cajole, invite, or even bribe them into participation in a place where they feel uncomfortable due to past patterns.

For instance, if this was the physical world -and not virtual world- I would say “provide childcare”. It is a way to go out of one’s way for women in our culture.

But…

Hmmmm….what if you did a survey of women greens? Just open-ended questions such as “What news is important to you?” “What level of green politics do you mostly read about?” “Who are your favorite political figures past and present?” “What do you like at GPW?” “Is there anything that GPW could do to make you feel more welcome to write or comment?” “Is there anything you could do to make GPW more exciting?”

Maybe nothing would happen. But, maybe it would.

One thing that I have been thinking about is the “culture” thing. Right now, I am in the midst of a kind of retro — though there are aspects of feminism and the woman question — obsession with Jane Austen novels and Charlotte Bronte/Jane Eyre lore. But, overall, culture can invite in people who like different styles than the usual political debate atmosphere. Perhaps Green Party Watch should have a link to Green Party music. I think that there have been CD collections for sale at gp.org. And, I know several greens who have been in bands. Maybe there should be weekly profiles of the artistic lives of Green Party activists.

And, what about children? For better or for worse, women in our culture still usually are the ones focused on the children. (I say that knowing that my colleague Roger is a feminist and stay-at-home dad, and that Ron H and Gregg J from here are both very family-focused.) But, what about making a sidebar with links to natural mother-ing sites, or organic clothing shopping? Or, interviewing green party activists who are moms and asking how they balance politics and families?

Just thinking about things.

Since I have taken somewhat of a hiatus from the Green Party proper, I am realizing that some of the reason it was not working for me is that I was lonely as a woman in a man’s world of meetings and bickering. And, when I was inside it, I got into the culture of bickering. And, I see that other women inside it (or any national organization, probably) often follow the men’s patterns sometimes, as a way of going with the flow and winning the game.

Anyway…one of my visions of late is this: What if all the green women came to the national meeting in suits and ties? Try to absorb that image. Because, many people in the Green Party are still saying that we should look like candidates and adopt the uniform of the winning culture (old argument, many groups have had.) But, when you adopt that style, note that men can wear the suit and red power tie and exude power. But, when a woman wears a suit for formal or business, to be at the proper level of dress, she is technically supposed to wear a skirt with the suit. (Might be some changes in attitude about pants, but they are very recent, and many people still have the old code of the skirt as most proper.) And, a woman wearing a tie looks kind of fashion-risque or even silly.

So, people should examine the games that they play. And, who is truly invited to play them.

Just thinking…

Thanks for the dialogue…

Getting lonely as a registered “blank”…

Thank goodness for Victorian and late Victorian literature…they bicker a lot, but with much more wit and elegance, and often more fulfilling results…

You wrote:
-If you want to portray yourself as a victim whenever someone disagrees with you, that is your prerogative. But you do not have the right to speak for others and make them into victims.-

I want you to reflect on the fact, that the language and angle you are using above is how people consistently stop people from discussin “racism” or “sexism”.

If, when I, as a woman, feel a pattern of women not being treated fairly, and I try to use my life or situation as an example, and then someone says, “That is not fair. You are making yourself into a victim. You are speaking for other women out of turn.” Then, no woman can ever speak up about her oppression.

It is an old game. It is THE game. The victims are squashed from even pleasant conversation and reflection on the situation. So, if the victims can’t speak up, who the heck will?

With racism, that is why people have the idea of “anti-racist, white ally”. Because, people who genuinely care about healing racism know that if a black person says something about racism, the whites will get their prickles up, plus the whites have the hidden disregard for the oppressed. So, white people are asked to speak up for black people, to kind of be spokespeople so that the person with hidden racism sees that a WHITE person is saying something, and can’t confuse the issue and say the BLACK person is just playing victim and trying to speak out for all their race.

Same with women. And, some people–a lot of people– in politics get that women’s groups need male spokespeople as liasons with the old boys network.

About heading over to the Cynthia McKinney threads…That is such a cop-out. Yes, there are nasty, horrible, racists who will post things about Cynthia McKinney. People who dislike her and the Green Party and us. And, sometimes we should call them out and correct them and set the record straight. But, most of them won’t listen to us. And, most of them won’t be changed.

We are here. A group who is supposed to be dedicated to diversity. We are working on projects together and have many of the same values. Let’s do the slower, harder work of getting ourselves on correct paths. That work is more realistic, if we put our minds to it. And, will have more important results for ourselves, our colleague and our mission.

But, yes, there are some real racists on line. Whenever we post stuff about Cynthia McKinney at our youtube or our blog, we have to sift through things, delete nastiness, and deal with yucky, overtly racist and sexist people.

What can I say – I disagree with you. I try to be self-aware, but I can find nothing disrespectful in anything I’ve written, and I don’t think there is anything condescending in the original post.

To be honest, I found your response to be bossy and condescending. Greens are not puppies, they are political activists. I love puppies, but politics is not for puppies, it’s for people who are capable of participating in dialogue and receiving feedback without lashing out.

If you want to portray yourself as a victim whenever someone disagrees with you, that is your prerogative. But you do not have the right to speak for others and make them into victims. If you think that making someone out as a victim is empowering, then I must disagree vehemently with you.

If Arizona Greens felt that this commentary was unfair to them, then I would like to hear why, from them. But saying “Maybe the greens in Arizona are so poor they do not have computers” is provocative and lazy. If you take a look at the links in the post, each of the chapters in question has its own website.

In an era when Greens have their own websites, we can try to engage potential supporters by updating those sites with interesting, relevant content. That, I believe, was the central point of Jonathan’s post, and I think it’s a great one.

If you want to talk about online manners, try heading over to the threads about Cynthia McKinney, where there are a lot more folks who could use some sensitivity training.

By the way, ascribing everyone who disagrees with you to a “national clique” or “old boys’ network” without a shred of evidence is not only unfair, it calls into question whether you are even aware of your own prejudices.

Just trying to be real with you. Peace.

With a “manager’s smile” :-)

Ron

We are very self-conscious here and have actively recruited women writers and contributors to GPW since the beginning, including Kimberly. Although both males and females can regurgitate equally Green Party news posted on other news sites, we appreciate the female perspective editorially. We can invite, but we can’t make people write.

After Gregg and myself, who both have posted around 400 pieces each, our contributors have been predominantly male, it is true. Below are those who have contributed at least 10 posts:

(F) Dee Taylor – 50 posts
(M) Walter Pituc – 29 posts
(M) Mato Ska – 29 posts
(M) Dave Schwab – 19 posts
(M) Dennis Spisak – 18 posts
(F) Rachel Treichler – 14 posts
(M) Paulie – 12 posts
(M) Jay Parks – 11 posts

Nonetheless, we will continue to invite Green women writers but we won’t stop posting Green Party news in the mean time.

If you wanted to pretend that I might be on to something, or trying to help, why don’t you try to rewrite the article again from a more “positive” point of view? Just for yourself, as an exercise in listening to constructive criticism.

First of all, the person I was addressing mostly above was David Schwab, who ignored all my comments and “talked passed me.”

Now, I cannot prove it. Because, it is a subtle, communications and feeling thing. But, I will say, I have been reading “Jane Eyre” and thinking of “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus”, and just thinking that there are not enough women in the Green Party, and not enough people who are committed to the task of making a culture where there is room for women-style and feminist communication, whatever that happens to be.

I note that– while I highly respect the people who run this blog — hardly any women post. After awhile, you have to figure it is not a coincidence. It must mean something.

If anyone cared about including women in the discourse they would think, study, question, survey, compare….should you change the format? Focus on certain issues that are not covered? Or, maybe when women post or comment, they are not being “heard” and “responded to” in ways that validate them.

This site is in no way WORSE than others or most. And, I am thankful that most of the leaders here respect me a lot and give me space. But, it is still kind of a lonely place for women.

I find that that is how politics is a lot.

Also, about “proving” that the article above has some negative strands…anyone could dissect it and do it.

It is critique-ing the Arizona Greens for not doing enough – for holding a meeting, but not doing ENOUGH by getting press for it. How could I prove that. It is there in black and white.

And, I say, there is so much to do in the Green universe. How could a green have time to write an article about a green local demanding they DO MORE, when some green locals do NOTHING?

If you want to be in a “progressive” organization, and offer “critiques”, it is far better to offer the critiques of the folks at the top, than the folks organizing at the bottom in the trenches.

Anyway, all I said is…next time you notice a green local does not get enough press, give them a ring-a-ding on the phone and ask them if you can help? It is probably time better spent than putting them up as an example of what is wrong in the world.

Now, do you want me to prove the part that local and national media is LESS LIKELY to cover Green Party events than other events? I don’t think that is difficult to do. Just google-new “Green Party” and google news “Democratic Party” and compare the coverage. The Arizona Greens are not the only ones left out of the news…

P.S. My husband finds it endlessly amusing that someone suggests that I am afraid of criticism among greens. He calls over to me, “Are you still towing the Green Party line over there?”

;)

I would really like to see some documentation that shows that I’m part of a Green Party old boys network. I can’t fathom what fact-based rationale you could have for saying such a thing.

Disagreement is not an attack. Disagreement is an important form of dialogue. That’s why it’s called “dialogue” – the prefix DI stands for two, as in two different points of view. If we in the Green Party aren’t allowed to disagree with each other, but can only write purely positive things about Greens, as you say, then we’ll be having a monologue, not a dialogue.

I don’t think that Green Party Watch ought to become the Fox News of the Green Party, where only the party line can be heard, without criticism. That approach wasn’t good for the Republican Party, and it wouldn’t help the Greens either.

Oh, well, even among greens, there is sometimes an old boys network…

;)

Though, some of these are the younger boys…

Kay sera. We can’t all be open minded and willing to dialogue…