Something that's been bothering me

X-post with Abigail: who has also picked up on that!

But you're not complaining about the male callers, NeanderChap? You're detailing the specific, 'feminine' ways that women make you 'lose respect' for them. Men, in contrast, merely 'annoy' in ways that aren't worth mentioning.

Is it any wonder that posters on this thread have picked up on that?

Nobody said you were a monster NeanderChap. They said you were sexist. And that post confirms it.

Brilliant! This reminds me of the cinema queue scene in Annie Hall, where Woody Allen gets bored of the loud guy pushing his bogus theory in the queue and so calls in the original director to correct him. Sorry if this sounds garbled to non-Woody Allen fans, but it's funny!

Well, a browser issue just ate my proper, reasoned post so I guess you'll never get a fair and balanced explanation :) My DW is the OP and I only know this thread exists because she was upset she'd failed to express what she meant to, and upset again that it had met a rather aggressive response. I must admit to being mildly irked that enough detail about my job is probably present to identify me, which is why I'm rude enough to be here.

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 .

It's only a small fraction, but since everyone else tried and managed, that just makes it worse! (I'm not the front line support, I'm the developer - if it gets to me, it's supposed to be serious, but I will help anyone with any problem as long as they actually care to learn). 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.

Male problem callers annoy just as much, in different ways. Fortunately both are small proportions. Most people read the instructions instead...

no nyac.men are not socialized to view women contemptuously
maybe the men you know are like this
certainly not my experience at all
gross sweeping generalizations are trite and unhelpful.its a bit like ole git at bus stop wisdom. Aye men...aw bad uns.yadda yadda

out of interest who would do this socialization?the mum?sister?partner?

do you include your own dad/partner/son in these sweeping generalizations? its no better than reducing all women to a set of characteristics

Well his wife doesn't think he is lying to her, and she knows him. We don't.

The point I'm trying to make here, is that most people have just taken this guy at his word and assumed that his reports of what these women are like and how they behave are correct.

My guess is they probably aren't.

Beachcomber I agree with you.

I also think it's important to note that men are socialised to view women with contempt, to stereotype them, and also believe that they are entitled to have everybody sharing their sexist views. Which people generally do.

"It's not possible to be sexist against men. You know that right?"

Why is it impossible?

I don't agree to disagree with you Kritiq, given that it was my posts that the quote was being used about, as my posts were the ones being criticised.

I've seen that Lorde quote used continuously against women for about ten years now since I became a radical feminist and not once about what Lorde was actually talking about which was racism. I think that's worth pointing out too. I find it pretty disrespectful to Lorde, if not worse.

I didn't start this argument with you, you joined in the commentary on my postings here. If you want to avoid discussions like this, you could always keep it to yourself the next time.

WW you don't understand what I mean.

I'm not saying that all women talk in breathy voices at work. I'm saying all women are socialized by patriarchy and all women are oppressed by patriarchy. Some of us react to that by acting in a stereotypical way at work, some of us feature in porny music videos, some of us put up with men not doing their share of housework, some of us have boob jobs, some of us wear high heels. What I am saying is that none of us escape our socialization and that the interesting thing to do in feminism, is not judge how other women deal with being women in a male dominated society which socializes them to do femininity, but to analyse that male domination and try to dismantle it.

This is reminding me of the Ann Summers thread where some posters thought that others were judging other women's choices and criticising women for being influenced by society. We weren't doing that we were saying 'gosh this socialization thing is a force to be reckoned with isn't it?'.

Nyac, we'll agree to disagree on whether it was acceptable for me to paraphrase Audre Lorde to illustrate my point. If it helps, take her out of the equation. The points I made about the benefits of clarity, sensitivity and respect in communication still stand. What I said about this not specifically being about you also still stands.

In any case, I think its probably best for both of us to park the issue here as I don't think we're going to find that much common ground on it. We can both probably put our energies to better use than arguing with each other.

I don't know feminist books that deal with women talking in breathy little girl voices and supposedly let the side down by asking for help with IT.

The OP actually said this about the feminist books she was reading:

"I keep feeling that texts are telling me that women don't bear any responsibility for their actions because we live in a patriarchy. That is, that there is nothing wrong with the women above because they're trying to get by in the system."

Which is standard anti-feminism although she may not be aware of it. Scrabbling around to blame women for sexism and patriarchy whilst ignoring the men responsible isn't feminist.

Nyac, I put this earlier, but you may not have seen it. i read the OP as her doing some feminist reading, then bringing it up for discussion with hubby. He is then prompted for some examples of stuff she has been reading about. He brings forth the subsequent example. Would you at least agree that, given our limited knowledge, this is at least possible? And that the OP then mulls it over, and comes here for help in setting her thoughts straight? So he may have been prompted directly by his wife, rather than just blurting out something that has pissed him off.

What do you mean by sexism WW.

It's not possible to be sexist against men. You know that right?

I don't think I am Sanjeev.

A lot of women feel very uncomfortable actually confronting men's sexism. They'd rather talk about what women are doing wrong. Or schools apparently.

I'm with you on ditching school uniforms, 100%. Never have understood the benefit in dressing small children up to look like they're going to the office. Gah!

I hadn't thought much about the "streaming" based on sex for specific subjects. I can see the potential benefits, but only if within the "culture" of the school, only the "boys classes" were seen as the "valid" ones. Also, that wouldn't automatically shift sexist presumptions amongst teachers - that's definitely an issue in many cases. In any case, I think it takes incredibly strong commitment and leadership from the Head Teacher.

Yep, I also agree that examples of women who have excelled can be inspirational for girls and young women. That doesn't just have to be within a school context though of course.

Nyac, have you considered that, on this point, you might just be wrong?

This guy is going to get away with it isn't he.

His sexism about the women he works with is going largely uncommented on and instead we're talking about schools. How far from the main point can you get.

beachcomber it is not "us women as a group doing this stuff", but "some women are doing this stuff". Big difference.

Well you see that is exactly what I disagree with. That isn't how I apply feminist analysis. I don't look at other women and say 'why are they, those other women, doing that?' I don't see it that way because I consider myself to be part of the same group (within patriarchy) as them - women as a group. I don't want to judge what other women do to get by in the patriarchy.

It is the same thing as not slagging women off for wearing high heels or working in the sex industry. I don't criticise those women - I look at why we women do femininity and spend my thinking time on the reasons why we do it.

It is also the same thing as when people have a go at someone like Rhianna or Beyonce 'letting the side down with their pornified music videos and shaking their ass'. The question is not 'why do they do that and let women like me down by doing so' but 'why do we women as a group do this stuff. WTF is that about?'

And that is only the first question - the interesting question is why does patriarchy often reward women for behaving like that and hold them up as examples to the rest of us?

At least that is how I see it. For me as a radical feminist it is not about 'women like me' and 'other women'. Just women, all of us, in it together.

Shall I post the Shakesville link again? She says it much better than I do.

TWFKASGM, I absolutely agree with your recommendation. So much sexual bullying that goes on within schools in particular is either ignored or at least indirectly encouraged. Nancy Lombard has done alot of work on this - the messages sent by teachers' and other adults' responses to violence and control in the playground (i.e. real and bad violence that you get punished for = boy against boy, not real, not bad violence that is ignored = boy against girl.)

Mind you, come to think about it, Sue Wise and Liz Stanley also wrote about this I think in the late 80's and if anything, I think it's got worse.

Sanjeev, that is an important point about the benefits of single-sex education for girls. I think it was the late Sue Lees (but I might be getting mixed up - I'm sleepy!) who advocated this in part because it removes boys as a "distraction" but mostly because evidence showed that in mixed sex educational settings, boys commanded more teacher time and received more encouragement and praise. Don't think I can lay my hands on that tonight though, so happy to be challenged on it if it sounds off.

Sure they do, SGM. But give them until 18, with seven years behind them of having a voice, being heard, and realising their own worth, and they are much better prepared. Surrounding young women with successful older women has to be the way to go, to show that it can be done. This is giving them the tools.

I'm in favour of 'sex-streaming' in schools where math, English and certain sciences are taught to sex-segregated classes. But in mixed social situations (and banning fucking school uniforms).

I would also like to see ed psychs and social workers and specially trained police attached to schools dealing with VAW.