[Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Something to air out, and then be done with it and move on to our important work

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Something happened last LNC meeting that really troubled me.  And I don't think it was intentional, but I think we need to be aware.  There are still comments that are made in this Party to women that would never (or perhaps never) be made in the same way to men.

I get to anywhere I get to because, ultimately, of my merit. The comment about me now that my husband is State Chair was IMHO improper and would not be said to a man in an opposite role, or if so, the connotation would not be the same.

I remind everyone - *I* was involved first. I work my ass off. And if I get any position it isn't because my husband is State Chair. I earn my own money and I earn my own merit.  I have a very good reputation on platform issues in CO because *I earned it* though hard fought effort and leading the Party through a very difficult time not because of who I am married to. 

If anyone thinks it is ever remotely acceptable to suggest otherwise or be silent when anyone else suggests otherwise well....

Don't wonder why some women say the Party is not friendly at times to women.  I don't think that reputation the LP has is always fair, but I do think we need to listen when it might be and just be aware.

I know it wasn't meant that way. But I am not the only person who took it that way and it was broadcast to the whole Party.

And I HATE identity politics with a burning passion and rarely if ever say any such thing about this subject. I can give as good as I get.

But sometimes it is nice for *others* to say - hey, that's not right.

And that comment said last meeting... it wasn't right.  To me or to the CO affiliate.

Thank you for listening but I think it had to be said and with that, time to get back to work.

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus 

Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:

We defend your rights

And oppose the use of force

Taxation is theft

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Sigh.  I have debated with myself whether to reply to this or not.  On the one hand, it's silly and I think most of the LNC ignores it.  On the other hand, leaving something like this unaddressed might make casual observers mistakenly think there is something to it.  In the unfortunate world of identity politics, men aren't even allowed to speak about it except to say that everything women say is right, and men are horrible pigs.  <eye roll>

Just today Caryn Ann said to another Bylaws and Rules Committee member, "Let's be more like Bill and Ted: Be Excellent to Each Other."  I don't think that rule was applied in this circumstance.

You can't on the one hand say that you know it wasn't meant "that way", and at the same time give the reactionary speech to play "the woman card" as though it was meant that way.  If you know it was "not meant that way" then it is unfair to later say "it wasn't right", and was an insult to women and to Colorado, escalating and projecting it onto an even broader audience of alleged victims.

The context was an effort to break a tie.  Both candidates were asked if they would have an option to seek appointment from a state affiliate.  The comment was about the likelihood of the candidates winning state appointments, not in any way a comment about anyone's gender or qualifications.  The exact same comment would have been relevant if the genders had been reversed, or if said by a woman to a woman.

I think sometimes women have their offense sensors turned up too high.  If women come to the table with a preconceived notion that they will be treated differently because they are a woman, then they are more likely to interpret a  man who takes a different position as battling womanosity, rather than having genuine issue disagreements.  Just as women don't want to be treated differently than men, it is not fair for women to react to situations differently because the other person is a man, when the same thing said by a woman would not have even been debated whether it was "that way" or not.

If women don't want gender to matter, and we want to be judged only on our merits, we should stop raising our gender flags to change the subject and portray the other person negatively just because they disagree with us or run against us for office.

It is an attempt to create women's privilege, rather than women's equality, when women won't allow a man to be perceived as merely having a disagreement with them about issues, but instead project sexism onto the man for the crime of not just letting the woman win the discussion because of her gender.

Though gender was not at play in this situation, let me also say that frankly, in the LP the female candidates often have advantages.  In life I have certainly encountered a few men who just couldn't hear it when I gave them the correct answer to their question, but they were happy to accept the same info from a man.  It's not a one-way street.  There are women who feel the same way about men.  I have not experienced gender hurdles in the LP, but maybe the men who run against the women for national office have room to complain about it.  Some female candidates flaunt their cleavage to try to get elected, because they want the men to react to their womanosity when it works in their favor, and then when disagreements arise they suddenly allege that their gender is a disadvantage and project their offense onto all other women.  That's nonsense.  We women can't play it that way without hurting ourselves.

It's not consistent to decry identity politics while at the same time engaging in it.

-Alicia

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

And I have to repeat the "sigh."  I ended my statement the way I did to let things be said and die, but Alicia, your comment is way off base.  And if we are going to have this talk.... okay.

==On the one hand, it's silly and I think most of the LNC ignores it. ===

I would appreciate you not insinuating that the LNC thinks it is silly or that my complaint is silly.  I think perhaps the read my last statement and thought good, let's move on. 

== On the other hand, leaving something like this unaddressed might make casual observers mistakenly think there is something to it.==

There is something to it if we mean, did something happen that caused an issue.  I have a very legitimate complaint here and I will not be ridiculed for it.

==In the unfortunate world of identity politics, men aren't even allowed to speak about it except to say that everything women say is right, and men are horrible pigs.+

I don't even identify as a feminist because I despise the way men are demonized by *some* in that movement.  But that doesn't mean that there are not differences in the way things are viewed and taken.  Larry Sharpe speaks about this eloquently.  

==Just today Caryn Ann said to another Bylaws and Rules Committee member, "Let's be more like Bill and Ted: Be Excellent to Each Other."  I don't think that rule was applied in this circumstance.==

Is this an agreement to transparency? I am glad you are voting for it.  So far I have only quoted my own words since I didn't have the consent of others yet.  Yes I said that.  I say that a lot.  

Actually that rule was followed here, and since you decided to respond and try to make me - the subject of a very inappropriate comment IMHO (it is inappropriate even if we remove gender - we could have been a same sex couple in CO) - the aggressor, I will show how.

==You can't on the one hand say that you know it wasn't meant "that way", and at the same time give the reactionary speech to play "the woman card" as though it was meant that way.  If you know it was "not meant that way" then it is unfair to later say "it wasn't right", and was an insult to women and to Colorado, escalating and projecting it onto an even broader audience of alleged victims.==

Things can be "not right" even if there was no malice.  I never assume malice.  There was though a completely inappropriate tactical assumption.  I should have objected at the meeting.   Would you like me to explain how it was a potential insult to Colorado?   And reasonably so?

1.  It was a direct insult to the Chair implying that the LNC should not vote for me since Colorado got a platform seat and "my husband was the chair."  Why is that relevant unless it was to imply that the Chair would give an advantage to his wife?  This is a direct shot at the CO Chair.  However, I do not speak for the CO Chair, and if he wishes to, he can write to the LNC.  But I should not have to explain how that was completely inappropriate - irregardless of gender.  Do marital relationships disqualify people from serving on the same Board or seeking a seat or vote from a Board where a partner is a member? 

2.  It was a direct insult to the Board of CO that not only would the Chair be likely to rig the game in favour of me but that they would go along with it.  CO is not run like that.

This is an insult to an affiliate.  I shouldn't have to explain this.

==The context was an effort to break a tie.  Both candidates were asked if they would have an option to seek appointment from a state affiliate.===

Correct.  And Aaron correctly stated CA was a large state with many competitors.  I said I was certainly not guaranteed a Platform seat either and it was said "yeah but her husband is the Chair."  That is not in any shape or form appropriate or relevant unless it was to suggest that my marital relationship would be used to gain an advantage in voting for a position.  And yes, I do not believe it would have been said to a man from another man.  OR if it had the connotation would not have been the same EVEN IF NOT INTENDED.   As Politicians and in front of the entire Party, we HAVE to consider OTHER people.  And I can tell you that other people in the Party took it precisely this way. Even if it was not intended.   It was not right.  Something can be "not right" without making the other person out to be some terrible person.  

==If women don't want gender to matter, and we want to be judged only on our merits, we should stop raising our gender flags to change the subject and portray the other person negatively just because they disagree with us or run against us for office.===

This is an inappropriate insinuation Alicia.  You are claiming bad intent and malice.  I am merely trying to say how it came off to me while stating the whole time that I do not believe Aaron meant to do so.  I still believe that.  This is out of bounds.

==It is an attempt to create women's privilege, rather than women's equality, when women won't allow a man to be perceived as merely having a disagreement with them about issues, but instead project sexism onto the man for the crime of not just letting the woman win the discussion because of her gender.==

This is also inappropriate if you are saying that is what I did.  Generally is this true at times?  Certainly.

==Though gender was not at play in this situation, let me also say that frankly, in the LP the female candidates often have advantages.  In life I have certainly encountered a few men who just couldn't hear it when I gave them the correct answer to their question, but they were happy to accept the same info from a man.  It's not a one-way street. ==

I agree.  It has happened to me before too.

==  Some female candidates flaunt their cleavage to try to get elected, because they want the men to react to their womanosity when it works in their favor, and then when disagreements arise they suddenly allege that their gender is a disadvantage and project their offense onto all other women.  That's nonsense.  We women can't play it that way without hurting ourselves.==

I don't disagree here either in general.  It happens and people use whatever advantage they have - be it good looks, youth, smarts, charisma.  It isn't relevant here, but it does happen.  I do think there is often such a thing as female privilege, another reason I don't identify as a feminist but rather as an egalitarian.  In essence we agree on a great many things.

==It's not consistent to decry identity politics while at the same time engaging in it.===

I was not.  It is not appropriate to dismiss someone's complaints either just because they don't like identity politics but accept the reality that there ARE times when things ARE different.  Decyring identity politics doesn't require me to say different treatment NEVER happens. I just don't think it happens nearly as much as others think.

I don't wish to get into a big battle here.  I said what I needed to and was willing to be done with it.

I was making every attempt to be gracious - i.e. no intent was here to do harm - while still not denying the reality that harm was done.  This is a learning experience.

And the LP does have a reputation (and the LNC in particular) for not being friendly to women.  I have defended against that accusation night and day.  You can put down my belief that this would not have been said to a man or the connotation would have been heard differently but it is what it is to me.  You can dismiss that entire point and the insinuation about the affiliate remains.

And other Party members have communicated this to me.  And said "that wasn't right."

And yes, let's please Be Excellent to Each Other.  And that includes apologizing when things happen that were not intended.  My advice, an apology is needed and specifically to the CO Chair.

-Caryn Ann

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Caryn Ann,

 

You seem to think it is a magnanimous gesture for you to ask people to just move along and let it die.  What it really amounts to is flinging the accusation on a public list to do its PR damage, and then asking that no one defend against it.  I’m sure many District Attorneys would love to be able to only present their side to the jury and forbid a defense.  Their conviction rates would greatly improve.

 

Perhaps you could consider that the comment was merely noting the reality that you are well known to your state board, and human nature is that people are more likely to vote for people they know well.  This tendency is even stronger when we require that members sign their ballots.

 

-Alicia

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Alicia, you seem determined to find ill intent and machievallian planning.  Anyone could respond.  I never said no one shouldn't.  You stated no one responded because they all thought it was "silly."  (and I think a dismissal of my point as silly is not appropriate either)  I stated that it was more likely (as evidenced by David's comment) that they felt what was said was said and that was all they cared to do.  Please quote me where I forbid a defense.

==Perhaps you could consider that the comment was merely noting the reality that you are well known to your state board, and human nature is that people are more likely to vote for people they know well.  This tendency is even stronger when we require that members sign their ballots.===

That is not what was said Alicia.  It could have simply been said, she is on the state board.  It could have been said, she is well known in CO for helping get the ballot selfie law repealed and is a folk hero (temporary) for that.  Everyone heard what was said.  Aaron is very well known in his state too for his valiant attempts in Oxnord. We are both very well known to our state boards.  It was more than that, and I think most people see that.  No - what was said is that her husband is state chair in answer to a question about CA, not even about me. Unless the particular fact that I am married to the State Chair is of particular interest to my appointment, and thus implying a good deal of unflattering things about the State Chair, and the rest of the Board (to whom I am not married btw), then it was inappropriate.   My marriage was made as an item of some kind of guarantee of voting advantage, and I don't think martial relationships on Boards by necessity do that - particularly if it is known to the rest of the Board - as it is in CO.  If anything, it wold be a disadvantage.  But I wasn't concerned, because I would have competed on merit.

We have over ten people on our Board.  The relationship of myself to the Chair was singled out for comment as reason to not vote for me.  I believe that was highly inappropriate on many levels, and if I wasn't blind-sided by it, I would have formally objected to the Chair. 

-Caryn Ann