Dittany - would be interested in your (and other's) opinion of this...

[FlamingoBingo]

Are women our own worst enemy?

I read it thinking that I agree, but then I remembered how you retaliate on here when you pick up on the notion that women are being attacked. What do you think of the article? Women-bashing? Or right?

I'd be interested on you're take on it as I did wonder if it was victim blaming

The article is mainly made up of a series of unconnected beliefs that have no evidence provided to back them up.

One for example would be that anorexia has been repackaged as fun feminism and the writer says we can see this all over the web. I've never seen it. It is certainly true that feminist ideas have been used on side of an argument about what causes anorexia and how it should be treated. Similar arguments have been put forward about self harm. I don't see these activities as being fun. Authentic perhaps, but fun?

I do not see an issue with Sian Massey not having commented on the remarks made about her. It isn't her job to comment on such remarks and it is entirely her decision as to whether or not she wishes to comment. She may have decided, that given other people have deemed the remarks sexist, there is not benefit to herself or women as a group in adding further comment.

To be honest, if I got into a debate every time I experienced sexism, debating would be all I ever did. We do all have lives to get on with. Sometimes sexist remarks are made in order to get a response and waste women's time or to monopolise their attention. Sexist remarks of a sexual nature are often made in order to get women to complain and talk about sexual matters. The poster on AIBU whose friend used a prostituted woman in Thailand; did he really want a debate with his female friend or was he just looking to get a sexual kick out of discussing his sexlife with a woman?

I don't feel the need to dignify every sexist remark with a response. Neither should Sian Massey or the women who work at Sky. Added to which of course is the risk to women's own economic and physical safety if they object to such remarks.

Thank you - makes a lot of sense. I'm still at the stage where I read something and find myself nodding, until I hear a MN voice in my head saying 'hang on! that's not right!'.

I'm interested in what I've read about collaborators, specifically a line I read in Sexual Politics, something along the lines of every system of domination and subordination has required collaborators in order to keep the status quo running smoothly (or words to that effect)

I do think female collaborators (women who would side with the patriarchy over women in a heartbeat) need to be identified, because they don't help women, but you have to ask yourself, well, what and who are they collaborating with ... and you realise the answer is: all the woman-hating, the erasure of authentic female experience, and the denial of sexism

Also, the psychology of the oppressed group is often affected negatively. there's a lot of denial going on, a lot of cognitive dissonance and blocking out of reality. It's a lot easier for women to attack other women than to attack the real culprits

But you can't blame those women - they don't get it! They really don't! They're so conditioned by the patriarchy that they really don't see that there is an issue . It's not their fault, really.

I know, I don't blame them per se, but I'm just pointing out that collaboration is a Thing that poeple in oppressed groups do. Racial and ethnic groups have always done it too..sold out, so to speak.

Ok, I see what you're saying - sorry!

I think the title is unfortunate because I think she makes some good points. Why do we have semi naked Jennifer Aniston in a nightie in a womans magazine? How many women were saying that Gray and Keys shouldn't have been sacked and it was all a fuss about nothing? why aren't women doing something about the things that insult us?

Its a fair point to ask why there aren't more women trying to change things.

I think there are a lot of women expecting gift-wrapped presents from the patriarchy for standing up against women's rights. E.g. the woman on The Big Question or whatever it's called the other day who thought that Keys & Gray were using hilarious banter and it should all be laughed off, you could see her almost looking around for someone to reward her for her statement. Same with Katie Hopkins on Question Time , begging the audience for support and getting sweet FA thank goodness.

Pointing this out is not breaking the laws of feminism. What would be wrong, for me, is saying that these women are "as bad as" or "worse" than the real live oppression of women by men, in the UK and elsewhere. Or, indeed, saying something fatuous like "how can we expect men to do anything for women's liberation when even some women disagree/CBA/perpetuate the problem?"

Yes some women perpetuate problems, but what would be right is for men to step up to the goddam plate and do the right thing for women's liberation, regardless of whether every last Jane, Liv or Susie has cottoned on to feminism too.

"the laws of feminism" is a figure of speech/joke btw, lurkers.

I think the basic opposition should be feminist/sexist rather than feminist/men. Which would mean that you could be a feminist man and that you can be a sexist woman (I don't mean that bollocks about women being sexist to men btw I mean more as collaborators as above).

There always seems to be someone who wants to shoot down arguments by referencing 'my mate Jane who is a lapdancer and earns six squillion pounds an hour and says she just laughs at the men'. I always think you get more collaborators in the war on sexism than you do with racism or sexuality because of sex and breeding and I don't know if there's a way round that?

Feminist/misogynist, then Unrulysun?

Great posts, dittany , it's great to have the status quo challenged so eloquently

FB yes that's what I would have said if I were an eloquent userer of the wordthingies :)

but now I've just read Dittany's posts on the 'men on the MWR' thread and I dunno anymore

yes, that's exactly what collaboration is swallowedafly

The question is, I suppose, is are they ethically challenged people with dubious morals?
I would say they're not. THeir decision to sell out their sex/race/ethnicity has come about as a result of their oppression. IN other words, it's a choice a white man need never make.

I do wish they wouldn't do it collaborate, though It would make things a lot easier

but to do that they have to admit how much they've been humiliated themselves.
MILs are terrible for insisting their DILs tow the patriarchal party line. That's because they were expected to. I can't help but feel that the animosity between MILs and DILs shows how very unnatural it is in many ways for a paternal grandmother to be overly-involved in the children. NOt that they shouldn't be or anything, but just that for some women, in some cultures (like Japan ) becoming a MIL is the only source of power available to a woman.
How many MILs are strong enough to be kicked twice by letting their DIL have powers they were never allowed to have? Becoming a MIL means that now it's their turn to rule the roost...
And the cycle perpetuates.I think opportunities for women will help with this so they don't live vicariously through their sons

But it's not just MIL. I can't stand this notion that new mothers have to be kept an eye on and if their place gets messy or if they can't get the kids to school on time, they "can't cope"
FFS! Just give them a hand I want to shout

''i can't help but feel they're worse in a way and have less reason not to fully understand the implications of their actions haven't grown up as an underclass in various ways.''

The Jewish ghetto inmates felt a similar way about the Jewish Ghetto Police. That they were worse, crueller then the German soldiers. Being betrayed by one of your one hurts but imo we shouldn't lose sight of the bigger picture.

one of your own