Onside or Not

No, I don't think so? I understand fine.

I'd love to see the evidence you mentioned, that's all.

I'm so sorry if it's too complicated a question. It wasn't intended to be metaphysical or anything like that. I'd be absolutely fine with just a few citations and an indication of how many studies there have been, what the parameters were, that sort of thing.

Thanks so much!

No evidence?

Oh, well, I suppose it did sound unlikely.

Women under 25 are not girls at school, bad. Though they may be women at university.

I think that may be why you got a bit tangled up.

"yet girls are surpassing boys in educational achievement, going to university in greater numbers and establishment (and traditionally male) professions such as doctor and lawyer are evenly balanced between the genders at the newly qualifying level (which I'm supposing is at 25 years of age)"

which, if that is the case, this is down to the successes of feminism.

However, it is the after that is problematic. Take your part: "the typical age gaps between partners such that men were likely to have progressed further in their careers and be more natural choices" is problematic because you state natural choices for something that is is cultural.

Ask yourself why is it the norm for women to marry older men? Why is the older man/younger woman scenario far more common on tv than the other way round? Why are older women who date younger men called cougars and looked upon with distaste?

And take the scenario you've painted of the typical couple in which the man earns more? Ask yourself: why do we gravitate towards that? It may seem entirely natural but it is often the case that women are made to feel guilty if they out-earn their husbands and so the returning to the conventional scenario can feel like a relief. I don't expect you to know this because how could you? I don't expect you've ever been told by your mother "Be careful dear, you don't want to appear cleverer than your boyfriend. It will emasculate him."

My point is that you are expecting patriarchy to be blatant, in-your-face discrimination. Sometimes it can be, but mostly it isn't. Mostly it's an intangible, drip-drip of messages that get into our psyche and convince us we're making the choices ourselves, but the truth is we're all effected, whether we know it or not.

Oh, I'm not confused at all - just looking forward to seeing your evidence.

You are incorrect, btw - women are not surpassing men at university (the target age group you mention). Whoops!

'the evidence is that for women of

Quite right, I didn't mean that! I hope each boy becomes whatever he wants (with the exception of a mini-Hitler!).

Re. the "patriarchy has no effect" I'm a bit lost. You seem to be saying that only women of child-bearing age are affected by wage differences and therefore that is not a patriarchal issue. I would disagree with that because not only is the assumption that women will perform childcare a patriarchal one (inculcated in girls at a very young age - take a trip to a toy shop) but the fact that it affects women's ability to make a living so drastically is down to a mixture of capitalism and patriarchy and a real issue for feminism.

To say that women under 25 don't feel held back isn't to say that they're not, just that they may not see it. I didn't really see it in my 20s because I was so busy adapting to a man's world. I wanted to be one of the guys and the last thing one wants to appear in such a situation is a feminist. It makes you terribly unpopular! So I tried desperately not to be one.

Of course that's not to say all young women are held back, but it would depend on one's own experience. For example a woman who has not been raped or sexually harassed may look upon the efforts of feminists to highlight the low conviction rates with detachment, but if it then does happen to her, it will have a new relevance for her. A woman who actively enjoys beautifying herself may not feel affected by the media focus on women's looks whilst a woman who doesn't will no doubt feel constrained by it.

I think that gender roles and expectations affect us from the moment we are born. They shape our interests and our future jobs, tell us what behaviour is acceptable and what is not, as well as the kind of behaviour we can expect from others according to their gender. And while girls are doing well at education they are not doing as well in the subjects that lead to the better paid jobs. I think there was a thread recently about their poor uptake in physics and IT, a lot of which is down to social factors, IMO.

"If a straight man calls a gay man a fa**ot, he is not just expressing his own anger at the gay man: he knows that that insult is effective because he has the weight of society behind him."

Super wise Marmite super wise!

Baddancingdad. I think we are talking at cross-purposes. I am saying that yes, girls are doing well at school, but that's no evidence that patriarchy doesn't affect girls at a young age. I think if you look at what kids say to each other in the playground, it cannot help but affect girls, and of course the many boys who don't fit the patriarchal ideal.

In my own experience of education through DS, I would say that one of the reasons behind boys relative lack of success at education is actually down to misogyny in a perverted way. Girls have done so well at education that it has come to be seen as a "girl" thing, which makes it anathema to boys who wish to distance themselves from all things girly. DS for example is regularly called "gay" or a "geek" because he shows enthusiasm in certain classes. In this instance boy culture is shooting itself in the foot.

However at the end of the day, boys will be ok because education is more needed for girls than for boys; there is a wealth of non-academic occupations that boys can advance in which aren't in reality welcoming to girls. Even female graduates who work their socks off will find themselves at a disadvantage when it comes to childcare, as you pointed out. A man can still expect an unbroken career whilst a woman cannot. At least not until an equal division of labour at home is something that young women can come to expect as normal rather than a stroke of luck.

Well, yes, of course their is experience is different, that's what I'm querying and wondering what the different experiences are that have caused them to be unable to appreciate the bias of priviledge. I don't think it's a case of being right or wrong, it's just that they had an inability to appreciate/ recognize/ debate those concepts at all.

I agree, Marmite, that was really interesting to read and thankyou for the link to the male priviledge checklist, it's quite overwhelming to see all those examples listed on one page. The opening paragraphs of that link, in which the author rebuts some of the criticisms regularly aimed at the list, were also interesting as those regular arguments are so familiar! One of the most difficult aspects for any oppressed group is the "uphill struggle" starting point, not only the fact that they need to establish that the oppression exists in the first place, but also that they must then create a willingness in society to want to end the oppression BEFORE they can even begin to alter things.

I had an experience last year where I was in a seminar with graduates in their 20s discussing diversity, discrimination and prejudice. Despite the intelligence and high-level of education of all the people in the room, there was huge reluctance to acknowledge that certain groups (ethnic minorities/ gay people were 2 examples that I recall) were really disadvantaged and there seemd to be an element of "political correctness gone mad" tutting in their approach to acknowledging the bias of priviledge. The few of us in the seminar who were in our 40s were astonished and had no problem understanding the real nature of discrimination. It made me wonder if this was either 1) a personal, isolated experience or 2) an example of society becoming more conservative with a small c or 3) a result of some kind of backlash against some of the gains oppressed groups have made in the last 20 years since I was in my 20s.

Mmm that was a great post, thank you.

Hi baddancingdad, I haven't read all of the other thread, hope I'm not repeating stuff.

Every human being should be treated equally regardless of race, gender, sexuality or any other circumstance beyond their control. Every human being should be treated as an individual on the basis of their actions and decisions they make.

Yes, every human being should be treated equally. But if they are currently being treated unequally, then some seemingly unequal actions may be needed to make progress towards equality.

Fundamentally, it depends whether you think we have already reached equality: if you don't, the rest follows. If you do, then perhaps that's a whole other thread

Male-only or male-dominated environments need to be challenged because they are elitist and perpetuate men's sense of entitlement. Women-only or dominated spaces are a fundamental requirement because they allow women space to operate and think without the oppressive nature of men.

I think it's a question of power. A women-in-politics group would give support to the underrepresented minority. If there was a profession where men were both underrepresented and faced greater obstacles and discrimination than women, then I would think it reasonable to have a men-only group, and unreasonable to have a women-only group in that profession. In society as a whole, men, white people,straight people and non-disabled people disproportionately dominate the public sphere, so oppressed-group dominated spaces are valuable to oppressed people.

-If something personal and negative is said, it is relevant who is addressing whom. If I am negative towards a woman, it is a sign of my privilege and belief that I am entitled to remind her of her place below me in the patriarchal hierarchy. If a woman says the exact same thing, it is seen as being rude by the man because he is unsettled to this challenge to his status. It is also only a drop in the ocean when compared to the millennia of abuse women have received.

Could you give an example of what "exact same thing" you mean? I'm trying to imagine the exact situation, where the same insult would be used in both directions.

Certainly insults between oppressor and oppressed aren't symmetrical. If a straight man calls a gay man a fa*ot, he is not just expressing his own anger at the gay man: he knows that that insult is effective because he has the weight of society behind him. The gay man, by that word, is reminded that whole sections of society consider his relationships disgusting or immoral, is reminded that newspaper editorials discuss how his relationship shouldn't be sanctioned by calling it a marriage, is reminded of the bullying and exclusion he may have suffered because of his sexuality. What can the gay man say in reply? I can't think of any insult for straight people, and if there is one, it will never have one hundredth of the power of "fa*ot", because it won't have all the historical and current oppression behind it.

a man's opinions and his judgement of an individual's decisions and actions - are often flawed due to his privileged position. This precludes men, to some extent, from discussion regarding human dynamics as they will naturally be prone to enforce their privilege. If I question feminism, therefore, I am seeking to continue the oppression of women.

Sort of, although I don't agree that you shouldn't question feminism - otherwise how will we be able to have a discussion? I think it's great that you're doing it here in your own thread: sometimes men questioning feminism can be disruptive if the thread is primarily aimed at supporting a woman, so obviously context is important.

Have you read a male privilege checklist yet? I think the concept of privilege can be problematic in some ways, but it's definitely something to be aware of and think about. One of the privileges is the opportunity to be unaware of your own privilege, so for example, as a white person I have the privilege to be very unlikely to be wrongly stopped by police; I also have the privilege that I don't need to be aware of police racism, the privilege that my parents didn't have to warn me about what to do if stopped when I became a teenager. My privilege meant I felt safe when I saw a police officer, and that I could assume everyone else felt safe too. Before I learnt about this, if I had seen a black person being stopped, my blindness to my own privilege would probably mean I would make an erroneous judgement about the situation: I would assume they were a criminal and that police officers were never racist. If I learnt that the person was innocent, I might come up with other explanations, because I still trusted the police - maybe they were acting suspiciously, maybe they shouldn't go out late at night, or wear those clothes. If I then started advising the person not to do those things, then I would be making their life more difficult, because my privilege had blinded me to the real nature of the problem.

Finally, are you aware of implicit bias? This is a huge huge part of the problem - that people discriminate without even realising they are doing it. This article is interesting, and you can test yourself for different biases at Project Implicit (click on "go to the demonstration tasks").

Hope some of that was useful/ interesting - I spent way too much time writing.

Sorry, my response was to enimmead.

Well that definitely has to do with class then. Of course a woman from a higher socio-economic position is going to have it easier than a woman from lower down the ladder.

I think the core of the matter is that the lifestyle of both women's lives depend on their husband's wage. If she is lucky enough to have a rich husband then she may have an easier life than her DH (health permitting) but the lower down the scale she will have a harder one because the onus is on her to run the home as well as work.
Although I think it gives someone a sense of self-worth to go out and be in the working world, which is probably why 19th century feminism found such a strong base in middle class women who weren't poor but were denied intellectual fulfilment by being barred from interesting professions