Something that's been bothering me

because i don't agree that that is feminism or serves women as a group in moving forward to greater liberation and equality WW. so no, i don't call that feminism and i believe it is counter productive to the feminist movement.

i don't attack the women making the choices though - just disagree with them if they say that those choices are feminist.

seriously it has been the rad fems who usually get accused of telling other women how to behave (erroneously) on here who've been defending women being slagged off for their behaviour and saying we can't dictate to them how to behave in patriarchy.

the irony is right there staring out us! i'm not sure how to deal with it.

it is like shadow boxing because the goals are moving all over the place. no we're not saying behaviour x is feminist but we're also acknowledging we don't have the right to dictate to someone how to behave or to judge them for behaving in ways they perceive as helping them get by in patriarchy OR behaviours that they use unconsciously because they've been raised and groomed to do so.

judging a woman for performing femininity with a man at work is like judging a child for having sex with the paedophile who groomed her to do so. and no i'm not saying women are children but that there is a grooming process in our socialisation which tries to feminise us into a gender performance the fact that the socialisation is successful on some is hardly surprising is it? we can lament that consciousness has not been raised enough, we can lament that it is human nature often to take the easiest (in the immediate) route and path of least resistance, we can lament plenty but berrating individuals doesn't help.

feminism always tries to condemn the system rather than the women in it - re: if anti prostitution it isn't prostitutes that are the enemy to be judged but the pimps and johns and the whole culture that promotes the right to stick your cock in someone as somehow sacrosanct.

sorry - prob awful cross posting gone on.

What exactly is oppressive about feminists saying 'I don't wish to judge or police other women and blame them for their own oppression. I wish us all to be liberated from that oppression'?

If you've " been advising against judging and policing other women's behaviour from the start. you've been, i thought, on the other side of the debate advocating it so i'm a little confused." why do you then suddenly come out with
"they are calling themselves feminists - i'm not. the choicey choice brigade are indeed, imo, part of the backlash and a patriarchal appropriation of feminism"

Are you not aware that saying that women who advocate choice means they can't be feminists is judging them?

I don't think anybody is saying that other people cannot despise a certain sort of behaviour.

Certainly what I am saying is don't despise the woman exhibiting that behaviour and place the blame for the behaviour where it belongs - on oppression. Despise the oppression that the behaviour originates from.

This is one thing that feminism has taught me - to respect other women and to feel solidarity with them. When a woman complies with patriarchy by tottering around in high heels and fluttering her eyelashes, I don't agree with her actions, and I don't think they are feminist actions in and of themselves, but I understand why some women exhibit that behaviour.

Like I said before, feminine behaviour like this is part of a spectrum, and we are all on that spectrum somewhere. It is self-hating to criticise how other women's femininity manifests on this spectrum.

you're arguing with the wrong person here WW given i've been advising against judging and policing other women's behaviour from the start. you've been, i thought, on the other side of the debate advocating it so i'm a little confused.

on the one hand feminists get accused of telling women what to do (which we don't) and then when we defend women not behaving in feminist ways we're wrong for that. for some people the only real objective is for feminists to be wrong regardless of whether that involves totally inconsistent arguing and posturing.

SAF You might not think that someone can be liberal and a feminist at the same time - but I'd rather lose the "feminist" label than the "liberal" one.

Where's the point in removing oppression by the patriarchy, if you replace it by feminist oppression. But I guess that's the problem with any ideology - at some point sooner or later it swings over to doing exactly the same thing as what it claims to stand against.

And don't give me that "oh, it's just political analysis and has nowt to do with personal choices", please, because that's bull.

dust - thanks for responding i can only assure you that most feminists here share your frustration.

"But isn't there a whole group of women saying that these are feminist choices?
Were't they called third wave feminism or something?"

they are calling themselves feminists - i'm not. the choicey choice brigade are indeed, imo, part of the backlash and a patriarchal appropriation of feminism - re: the sexual revolution actually being a switch from right wing men keeping women as wives and property that they can fuck, to lefty men wanting women constantly sexually available so they can fuck as many women as they like and call them 'liberated'.

the thing is by ignoring or scorning those women in your time what was achieved? you can't slag us off realistically for still facing the same problems, and more, that you faced a few decades ago. you can be frustrated as hell at patriarchy and the state of things but not at us who are still trying to fight it. you'll find very, very few people here who are into choicey feminism. what you are seeing is people refusing to get into women blaming because let's face it that's been tried hasn't it? and it didn't work by your own admission.

not everyone is a fighter. i'm sure when black people were trying to unite and combat racism it was frustrating for them to see some of their brothers and sisters not fighting beside them but doing things and being things that made their lives safer and easier and in the process could be accused of propping up racism but fighting each other wouldn't have helped would it? the problem was the racist system set up by white men and being profited from by whites - to not focus on that would have been to sink into blaming black people for their own oppression which would be collaborating with the white man who'd have happily agreed that yes it was black people's fault and because of ways they behaved etc.

grr child literally on top of me. hope this made some sense.

My main problem wasn't the dipshit girly behaviour, it was being told that it's not OK to despise it and call it anti-feminist. That's why I kept arguing. I also disagreed that the poster was necessarily MCP. My brain's gone to sleep - I just stayed up after it to finish my drink - so I can't drill down any more right now. Just wanted to restate a basic.

Yes, I would say I am a radical feminist but not in the same way as "this board". If we can't raise awareness to the millions of small things that make up an unfair system, we stand no chance! The millions of small ways women contribute to an unfair status quo are part of this. I do not feel I should be silenced when helping a woman to step out of a subservient role.

I know none of "you" would want that, either, which is why I'm so often surprised by these discussions.

I've just read this whole thread in one go. Do I get a medal?

Dust and Garlic - you both sound like you're one hoik of the Overton Window away from being radfems with your desire to change the system in a fundamental way. Wrenching the power away from those holding it etc. The 80s feminists (who I now think of as 3rd wavers and the funs as 4th) tried that and from my observation it got them Second Shifts, Prozac and rehab/therapy/1st World spiritualism but with a miniscule wrenching of power compared to the work of radfems or those with a single-minded pursuit of a particular issue (equal pay for speech therapists springs to mind, which had huge ramifications). Radfems got laws enacted, real help available for women in need and raised consciousnesses that women complying with the status quo weren't the problem - that was the system. You both know all this. So why the continued focus on on individual women when it is the system at fault? One woman, or even a hundred thousand spread throughout the country, who stops playing the patriarchal game alone creates an (?greater than) equal and opposite reaction. For what gain? FFS, even Gore Vidal sees this (in some senses) and he is no feminist.

If anyone thinks "I'll get my husband to do it" is an appropriate workplace statement in the 21st century I suspect I cannot meaningfully converse with them in any case.

I was referring to this bit actually.

I don't know where that because came from. Ignore it.

Oh - there's nothing wrong to ask husbands for help, or other people in general for help.

If I get stuck, my husband is my No1 go to excel wizard. But he's not spouting spreadsheet magic from his penis. It's just that he's vastly more experienced with it than I am, as he works more with it, so he can teach me stuff or give me pointers. If I expected him to do my work for me because I think he'd politely tell me to bugger off, though.

Cross post!

I do sometimes say 'I should ask my husband about that' but only where it's relevant - and I do explain that he's a web content editor, rather than believing that possession of a penis makes him a computer expert (he's not but he is able to translate between techies and clients).

(Actually I usually say 'I suppose I should ask my husband about that but by the time we've got ds into bed we are usually only good for slumping in front of old episodes of QI...')

I dunno, he did say he's annoyed by women who simper or say 'I'll get my husband to do that' but also said male problem callers annoy him. Depends whether he blames men as a group for the male problem callers, or treats male problem callers as representative of their gender. But he was commenting on the issue at the heart of this thread, so it's excusable that he didn't go into irritating male callers, although it would have been interesting to see how he described them and ascribed their behaviour to gender.

What he said was

"Opinions attributed to me may not be opinions I in fact hold. Women in my office are, contra the OP, actually a superb bunch and never the cause of the sort of problem that you got a weird warped description of. TBH, as an unworldly computer type and strict monogamist, I don't care what chromosomes or plumbing someone has as long as they ask me interesting technical questions! However, if losing respect for an external supplier on the 'phone when she drops the business attitude for a simper and says "that's hard, can you do it for me" or "that's a technical thing, I'll get my husband to do it" (true, and eww - is it still 1912?) makes me a monster, then I guess I'll have to learn to be happy with that label"

If that makes him a sexist, then I'm a sexist, too.

I read it as him being just as pissed off with the problem as anyone else here might be about it.

But cos he's a bloke, he gets the blame and called all manner of things.

But there you go. I think it says as much about any of us as it does about that guy. I'm not sure it necessarily reflects well on anyone.

His attitudes to the women he does work for is sexist.

It's a misuse of the word sexism to call pointing that out sexist.

I didn't find him particularly sexist, actually. Maybe those who did are in the minority, hence it didn't get much comment?

Except that said man then came on and made his sexism clear for all to see.

Just not many commented on it.

Oddly.

Second hand. Third party.

Same thing.

Second party, surely, given they are married? (Maybe I'm thinking of third party fire and theft rather than good grammar...)

Oh of course. Silly me WW.

Its AMAZING what you can do in the name of political analysis. Isn't it a bit like when people go "I'm not racist but". Shall we apply that here?

"I'm not sexist but this man is obviously being a typical misogynist and hates all women based on a short couple of paragraphs posted by a third party"

Arf arf.

Hmmm - I'm told it's not judging if you call it political analysis. Potayto potahto.

Yes, it's down to every feminist (male or female) to challenge sexist behaviour. But I can't blame women who play the game and do what it takes to get ahead in a sexist world. Well, I can, but I can also see that while switching into a breathy, high-pitched voice may not be good for the sisterhood as a whole, it might work for the individual. Or appear to work for the individual.

So, do I disapprove of da system that makes that a viable choice for an individual woman? Of course. Do I disapprove of the men who react positively to breathy high-pitched voice? Maybe, or maybe it's all unconscious conditioning... Do I disapprove of women who switch into breathy, high-pitched voice to persuade a man to help them? Maybe that's a valid choice in a rotten system. Or maybe it's conditioning. Or maybe it's not a choice I consider valid myself, but as a feminist I have to approve of choice, or something?

(Actually after watching government policy on public services during the Blair era and currently, I am starting to really dislike the word 'choice'. Often it's a fake choice and actually cover for privatization or worse services or both. I am starting to really suspect that word whenever it's used outside the 'my body, my choice' context.)