I received an email the other day from one of my email friends—that is, someone I have never met but have become very friendly with—and he made an interesting observation. He said he was reading Gail Collins’ book When Everything Changed, about the amazing changes in women’s lives since the mid-1960s, and he realized something that he wanted to share with me. He said, your critics have a habit of psychologizing their criticism of you. That is, instead of engaging with the substance of what I write, they look for some deep motive. This is simply a form of condescension, in this case, a male reaction to a female with whom they disagree.
He quoted Arne Duncan, who said, “Diane is in deep denial.” He quoted another critic who said that I was “angry,” though the critic didn’t say why I was angry. It all sounded like a version of the old saw that a feminist was acting as she was because of her hormones or some hidden grievance. We can’t take the little woman too seriously because she….
Now the emails that flowed between the New York City Department of Education and lobbyists for charter schools have been released and they continue in the same vein. I am described in them as “deranged,” a “dangerous crackpot,” “dishonest and platitudinous,” and “slippery.”
At no point does it appear that anyone discusses or debates my serious concerns about privatization. None of these men attempts to challenge or refute what I wrote. No, all these guys can do is to demean, condescend, and insult.
My correspondent put all this into context. These men are reacting by psychologizing my motives. Is that what men do when they think no one is listening and that no one will see their emails?
Diane
http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2012/05/crowd-sourcing-up-till-now-secret.html
Diane, Given the state of education “reform,” everyone ought to angry! What is being done to children in the name of educating them is unconscionable. Perhaps it is all related to the mid-60’s When Everything Changed–the dismantling of the health care system, women’s rights, Civil Rights, Main Street, public education in America, Social Security/social security–upper and lower case, wars on terror, drugs, women, the environment… Now, now, little lady. Don’t you worry your pretty little head.
I stand on the side of the angry, deranged, denying, slippery, dishonest and platitudinous, dangerous crackpot!! We need a whole lot more of them!!!
Please don’t go back to spending all your time in the kitchen!
This is common. Many men, especially those who use “traditional” as a euphemism for mysogynistic, dismiss women entirely. Engagement requires a recognition of a worthy other and they don’t see women that way. People like that can’t be convinced with logic, data or analysis.
Thank you for this post. I’m inspired by high-visibility women who have the courage to not care what “men think” and dare to call out the sexism and misogyny still very alive in our society.
Yes, Diane. That is what some men do. Welcome to feminism! Thanks for this post, though I’m surprised it took a male correspondent to open your eyes to this!
If anyone is in denial about public education, it’s Arne Duncan and Barack Obama.
Reblogged this on Transparent Christina.
Doubt if it took a message from a guy to cause DR to realize she was being marginalized. Her friend just pulled it all together and gave it a name. As one who grew up in the 60’s and 70’s, and who lived and breathed the fresh air of feminism, I am never surprised by men, and women (disappointingly), who fail to spot prejudice and bias when they see it or when they themselves create it or repeat it.
I’ve been accused as being too confrontation whereas my male counterpart for classified staff has never been told he’s too confrontational. I’ve also told to watch my tone and my new favorite was the person who questioned my mental stability. None of these, I would wager to guess, would be hurled my way if I were male.
*confrontational that is!