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.

Nyac, I don't have a chip on my shoulder about anyone on this site, why would I?
I don't know you as a person, and I sometimes disagree with your arguments, that is as far as it goes.
In the same way that if you do choose to ignore me, I won't mind either. I'll just ask the question again and someone else will answer.

I pointed out a few sly attacks you made on me. Definitely a chip.

Conversation over until you say who you are.

OK.

good grief,what a strange outburst
do you often feel got at or attacked?

I've been around a while sm, and you and I have blethered on occasion.
Only I've namechanged a few times because I don't want to be easily identified IRL.
Somehow if I give out all my previous names and so am able to be pigeonholed correctly, that would make Nyac happier. But I don't want to.
So I'll just wait until someone else comes along who can think of a better way of changing the current status quo of our society than asking men to change and leaving it at that.
I don't mind who I talk to, perhaps SAF or KRITIQ will have some ideas.

I'm probably going to get shot down for this, but look, this is not on. This website is anonymous. No-one has to say 'who' they are. In fact I'd go so far as to say it could be dangerous - some women on here have damn good reason not to use real names or to identify old posting names. You should know that nyac. If you don't want to engage I doubt anyone thinks you have to, but it is really out of line to ask someone persistently to identify themselves.

ive been accused of mn stalking,aka disagreed
so me not concurring was construed as stalking
but fatal flaw,being I don't take note of names
all words on a screen to me

agree doom cats,anonymity is the premise and point of mn
if nyac seeks knowledge,and corroboration of posters then shell not find it online discussion forum

Thank you, but it doesn't bother me, nor am I going to be pressurised into something I don't want to do by being guilted into it, or being accused of having a hidden agenda to squish Nayac.
Being an empowered woman and all that, I'm resistant and resilient.

How would you effect change Doomcats?

I'm not pressurising you. I just said I wasn't going to engage with your questions after you'd attacked me, pointed out we had history and you recognised me, but still wouldn't say who you were. Like I said one-sided BS doesn't interest me.

Then don't engage.

lol,posting to tell someone you're ignoring em
and don't care
priceless

Oh I'll point out the crap you're coming out with about me. Like claiming I'm pressurising you. I'm not. You painting me saying I'm not interested in conversing with you as pressure is just more BS.

dust - what change are we talking?

With regard to the OP - I think this thread took a bizarre tangent at the start and stayed off topic. I posted earlier to point out (as others have) that there is nothing wrong with women who have high, breathy voices and it is disconcerting (to say the least) that we can't just stop with that.

I'm sure some women do make accommodation with the patriarchy and change their voices just as they change things about their hair or faces or bodies. As a feminist I feel strongly that women should not be pressured by society to do these things, and that currently they are pressured by society. But IMO commenting on women's voices and assuming they're put-on is just as un-feminist and plain rude as assuming all large-breasted women have had boob jobs. We should accept women as they are, then maybe society will start to do the same.

I said I wasn't engaging with your questions.

That's no reason not to rebut your attacks.

so you keep posting to demonstrate non-engagement?
nyac,if mn or posts irk you so much maybe hacpve a wee break

''The workplace, perhaps with a few exceptions, is institutionally sexist. The reason that is, is the men who hold the power in most workplaces don't want that to change and systematically discriminate against women in a variety of ways.'

So how to effect change? How to enable women to refuse to act up to the expected stereotype? How do we stop men from benefiting from a patriarchal structure designed to support them?

Presumably we could wait for men to wake up and say
'Hang on, I'm in a position of great privilege and the world is exactly how I like it, and I can get away with all sorts of discriminatory behaviour, and be paid more and own the world. Well, that's not fair...'
A few men might indeed become individuals who see things from a feminist perspective, but I doubt the majority would.
Or is there a better way than to wait for the oppressor to lift his boot?
Instead of yelling 'It's not fair' and getting a shrug in return, or indifference because it doesn't affect them in the same way.

That's the change I was asking about Doomcats. Is there an alternative as well as asking men to change?

I think I covered it TBH dust. If we accept women as they are, and don't assume or expect they'll fake, change, adapt, accommodate themselves and their bodies, then we're on the right track.

You know what dust? Start a thread about that and we can all discuss it without it being embroiled in all of this. And then maybe we can all get a sense of each other's ideas instead of being interrogated (which it does feel a bit like right now).

'If we accept women as they are, and don't assume or expect they'll fake, change, adapt, accommodate themselves and their bodies, then we're on the right track.'

That's the premise that a lot of the feminists I knew in the 70s worked from, but since then we've had even more pink/blue raising of children, ever skinnier ideals of female beauty, even more adaptation of the body to try and achieve the perfect shape. Superwomen with jobs and children still doing wifework
It has dismayed me how much ground has been lost rather than gained over the last decade or so.

If we look at history, some amazing women have launched campaigns to improve women's rights and equality, but every single measure that went through and became law did so because men took up the cause and ran with it.

Little has changed. Yes, women should stand up and do as much as they could to overturn inequality in the workplace but only if they are comfortable with doing so. If they lose their job they face a lot more obstacles to finding further employment than the average man. But when women do band together to fight inequality it's wonderful. And they are doing it. In their droves. Feminism is experiencing a resurgence, feminist groups are very active and leading female politicians fight for their beliefs - often in the face of great ridicule. Witness the lambasting of Harriet Harman for example.

Men and our male leaders are not doing as much, and in some cases are actively sabotaging things. To then say women aren't doing enough feels a bit like victim blaming to me, though I accept the argument that the oppressors will never stop oppressing without first being made to feel that their oppression is wrong and should change.

Wasn't there an estimate that equality in the workplace will be achieved in about 150 years if we carry on at current speed (and I think that was before the recession)? I think we're going in the right direction but it's just too slow. And the reason it's too slow is because those in power (mainly male), whether that's power in the workplace or in the law, may not actively seek to oppress women but if women are the casualties of another objective they do not care. We are seen as collateral damage and that makes me very very angry indeed. The measures put in place by the coalition would look very different IMO if men were receiving the fallout that women are.

That doesn't mean the premise is wrong, though. I think we all agree it's depressing when feminism doesn't make as much headway as we'd like, but that's no reason to give up.

Anyway, what do you think? What is the answer?

Ok that makes no sense at all now there's been other posts.