Something that's been bothering me

[mumwithdice]

I've been doing a lot of reading lately and talking with DH about his work. He says that one difficulty he has is with women whom he knows to be capable and competent coming up to ask him to do really ridiculously simple things in breathy little-girl type voices (they put these voices on specifically). He tries to manage this by showing them how to do whatever it is not doing it for them. He has also had women try to avoid learning any technical things which are requirements for their jobs (opening zip files) by using the stereotype of women not being capable of techy stuff as a get-out clause.

So what bothers me? I suppose, really, 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. And yet at the same time, I feel that actions like that do a disservice to women who can and do want to do technical things because it only reinforces stereotypes.

So can women do a disservice to other women and thus to the aims of feminism?

I am genuinely asking because I don't know the answer, it really bothers me not to know, and because I've found this board quite good at answering questions. Also, again, if this is Feminism 101, please tell me and I will look it up there.

I've had one namechange because I was getting bashed so much but pretty much everybody recognises me still (or at least the bashers).

Who are you? Who have you been? Given that you are opining about me, it seems only fair for you to be upfront.

He claimed that a whole lot of women in his workplace were using seductive voices to ask for his help and he or the OP decided that not knowing about IT meant they were letting the side down somehow for feminism. Both those things are sexist.

I'm a shabby old poster, not a stalker or a MRA and you and I have grumbled at each other before.
The point of my namechange is to avoid being easily identified so I'm not going to out myself here. I may namechange again, depends how the winds blow.
Why does it matter? There are thousands of posters here.

Because you're singling me out like you know me.

If you have past history with me I'd like to know about it. Namechanging does make bashing easier though.

Where did you get the word seductive from? It wasn't in the OP was it?

You think I'm bashing you because I disagree with you on a matter of opinion?
Am I attacking you? Is a disagreement an attack?

Are you going to tell me who you are? PM me if you don't want to say it here.

Otherwise I think our conversation has ended. You recognise me and are using that. On the other hand I'm at a disadvantage.

These are attacks:

"Some people can hold a reciprocal conversation without unintentional or intentiona intimidation and some find it a challenge."

"It would probably be a lot less frustrating for you if those of us that didn't understand or agree with certain arguments just went away really.
The purity of the philosophy could be preserved from contamination or befuddlement."

Sly ones, but still attacks.

You have a very distinctive posting style, it is difficult to muddle up with anyone else.
I am obviously less memorable, feel free not to engage with me if it bothers you.

Shame the important message about looking beneath the surface and seeing how misogyny blames women for the effects of misogyny has been kind of lost in the bunfight.

I do feel that the presence of people like me on threads like this is annoying and irritating to some of the regulars, and I'm sorry that is the case, but it is the nature of such a forum that you can't close the door.
If you feel I'm attacking you, report the offending posts.

it was all in there edam - just a bit spread out by all the shite

Shall we go back to SAF and KRITIQ's posts?
There were some very good questions and ideas that would be interesting to think about.
Such as

'However, what would be interesting is to discuss what we can all do to push those boundaries, to support each other in our "outlawdom," and encourage the next generation of young women and girls to be less constrained and conflicted in their actions and choices.'

Well when you're having a go at me DITW it's hard to ignore you, but i do try and forget the people who bash.

I think we should talk about how sexist some men are in the workplace and how they like to undermine the women they work with, and then blame the women themselves for it. Because the OP is a classic example.

I've said this on other threads but I think there's a gapping big hole in primary education. I don't think we spend enough time teaching children public speaking and listening skills. I think this does a massive disservice to girls whose voices are silenced outwith schools. I think we need to target small children and teach them how to speak publicly and how to express their needs and wants. Instead, we allow them to grow up around images of femininity which are silencing and performative. We owe it to our girls to start working on their communication skills as children.

'Well when you're having a go at me DITW it's hard to ignore you, but i do try and forget the people who bash.'

Oh good.
What about KRITIQ's point? How can we

'encourage the next generation of young women and girls to be less constrained and conflicted in their actions and choices.'

Following on from TheWoman: schools dont see sexual equality as important as racial equality. i think some of this comes from schools being majority staffed by women so their working experience is 'the battle has been won'.

e.g. schools DP has worked in, it was acceptable for boys to call each other 'a girl' as a put down.

The issue of sexism in schools is definitely a problem. The old chestnut of 'a boy shows you he likes you by pulling his hair' is just awful. The use of 'girl' as a put down not worthy of punishment is utterly ridiculous.

It's small things like the write a paper on a famous scientist but not giving an 8 year old the name of a single female scientist.

I would very much disagree with that Tilly.

Teachers see the reality of sexism in action every day, particularly if they work in secondary schools, where a third of girls are likely to be sexually assaulted, where the majority of boys agree that it's OK to hait a woman if she annoys you enough and where the sexual double standard is probably more pronounced now than it was in the eighties when I was at school. They also see that men who are in the taching profession, are disproportaionately more likely to become heads of dept and head teachers. Adn they must be inundated by the princess phenomenon at primary level.

I would have thought that they'd be more attuned to sexism, not less.

Meant to say, the reason schools don't see sexism as important as racism, isn't because they're staffed by women, but simply becasue they are a microcosm of society and society doesn't see sexisim as as important as racism, because women simply aren't as important as people.

In the classroom, a good teacher will ensure that the conversations are not dominated by male voices, that certain equipment and activities are not hogged by the boys, that sexist language and attitudes are challenged and debated. That sexual harassment is taken seriously and always acted upon.
In most schools that probably does happen to a greater degree than in most families.

DP runs a primary school, so i dont know about secondary. his experience is that schools dont take sexism & homophobia anywhere near as seriously as they should.

i agree you would expect better.

Nyac, I'm familiar with the work of the late Audre Lorde, and the context within which she used the phrase in question. That is why I clearly stated that I was paraphrasing her words.

Yes, she used the phrase to criticise white feminists for replicating the patriarchal view and practice (the masters' tools,) that discourages women from valuing their differences, that encourages them to regard difference with suspicion and mistrust.

I paraphrased her words to suggest that feminists should also be cautious about appropriating other tools of the patriarchy, whether consciously or unconsciously.

Sure, I can see how one might believe that communicating in a blunt, officious or harsh manner is subverting patriarchal expectations of how women should communicate. Equally, it could also be seen as simply replicating communication styles "endorsed" for use by men within patriarchy.

Problem is, when someone chooses to communicate in this way, it's not always possible to discern whether they are doing it only to rebel against patriarchal expectations that women should be nice, sensitive and patient when they communicate or whether they're doing it for the same reasons men do - to coerce, to dismiss, to silence. Even where the latter is definitely not the intention, the person being spoken to can still experience it in this way.

That is why I urge caution - that in showing our rejection of female norms as defined by patriarchy that we don't inadvertently end up appropriating and perpetuating male norms. Frankly speaking, I'm not prepared to put up with bullshit from men and expect them to communicate with me with respect and as a human being, not an inferior being. I also expect the same from women.

And I am definitely not saying this to single out or attack Nyac or any individual here or anywhere. This is a view I've held consistently for decades, and expressed in many contexts - often when trying to stop feminist organisations from imploding and where communication has utterly broken down.

I still firmly believe what unites us is greater than what divides us, so that's why I keep asking if we can point the discussion towards those things we do hold in common, so we can do something about the stuff we can do something about together.

Gah - I see the convo moved on while I went off to make a cup of tea. Hope my post above doesn't inflame as that definitely wasn't my intention.