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.

Sorry, not clear - my last was to dust, not sunshine.

I agree with what you say sunshine. And when I said before 'we' need to accept women as they are, I mean all of us, the whole of society. Society needs to accept being a woman is just as good as being a man.

One of the ways I think the patriarchy really knocked feminists down since the 70s is in encouraging this idea that in order to be successful, a woman should really be more like a man. It seems to me that is at the root of this thread. So we get to the point where a certain kind of voice is identified as being child-like, sexualized, and feminized, all at the same time and all of these reinforcing the others. I find that so deeply creepy. And the thought process being to seems to be that a voice that is definitively not a man's voice is both female and childish - as if those two groups are almost merged together by virtue of both being Not Men.

Well what benefits are there in society to men if certain changes happen?

They do exist.

Its about selling an idea. And you don't need to sell to the establishment. Not in this country. For all its flaws and weaknesses in democracy, its still pretty good at changing attitudes that don't fit with what the conservative (little c not the tories) establishment might like.

Find common ground and problems men (and women) have and work from there. Men are certainly not the enemy and are more willing to support if you allow them to. This is what I mean about building bridges and breaking misconceptions. Too often feminists are guilty of making something a 'feminist' issue when actually its a problem for society. By labelling you put it in a box where its almost 'someone else's problem'. Make it society's problem and you make it everyone's problem. Sell ideas to a wide audience rather than an elite or narrow one.

I personally think there is a subtule but core difference between patriarchy and the establishment. If you hold to the belief that the patriarchy is everywhere and inescapable you really do drown in your own ideology. I think women are a lot freer to do what they want, if you don't let yourself get too caught up with ideas of patriarchy and a "can't do" attitude from that. Negativity never achieves.

I'm utterly baffled by this idea that only men can change society thing, whilst at the same time doing everything possible to alienate them. Thats an action that suggests, either you've given up, or you don't want change. Talk about reinforcing the idea that women are weak. Bizarre.

Plus I think you shouldn't loose sight of how revolutions work. You can have an "overnight revolution" but it doesn't mean its actually happened over night. It takes a long time for pressure to build, something snaps and changes, but it doesn't change what everyone thinks about it. You end up with a long hangover from the revolution as it filters down and deeper things with a culture take a generation or two to get widespread support. I'd question where we are in that cycle. Are we at the start or towards the end?

sunshine - no, it made perfect sense I think!

I haven't given up, and I've been a feminist for a very long time.
I have trouble with the idea that intelligent women who are capable and competent are waiting for men to end the patriarchy without feeling that women as a force could refuse to buy into acceptable, polite, normal behaviour and ask why it is expected and then choose to refuse to be part of it. But that is now seen as victim blaming, whereas I see it as enabling and empowering the previously unaware.
No one is responsible for being the recipient of a sexist attitude, that is the perpetrator's responsibility.
But it is up to the individual how they respond, and the idea that women will continue to comply until men free them of those expectations doesn't make sense to me.
I'd rather liberate myself.

Wasn't there an estimate that equality in the workplace will be achieved in about 150 years if we carry on at current speed

Heard very different timescale to that. I guess it depends on who is doing the storytelling and for what purposes.

I actually meant my post made no sense because I didn't refresh before I posted.

I think what I'd like to see is more pressure put on those in leading positions to lead by example. But as long as governments don't see the value in ensuring a certain proportion of their politicians are female I can't see how other male-dominated environments can be expected to follow suit. What bothers me is that not only do I think this is perfectly possible, I suspect that they are aware of it and have just chosen not to do it.

Where have I said women have given up? The first and second paragraphs of my 23.49 post was all about how women are actively fighting this.

I agree that many of feminism's problems are society's problems. Perhaps we're approaching this from opposite sides of the fence. I think one of patriarchy's greatest tricks is to paint women's problems as something that affects a minority, when in fact women make up just over half the population and therefore women are society.

I'm also the sort of person who supports co-operation and carrot before stick, but sometimes it is necessary to remove the gloves. I'm pretty sure that long before the term feminism was even coined there were women who were more than a little pissed off at their lot in life because they were women. We've had millennia with very little change if you really think about it. Which isn't defeatist, nor does it fail to celebrate the wonderful advances that have already been made; it simply acknowledges that given the timescale a lot more should have been achieved and would have been if it wasn't actively being fought against in many areas.

Apologies for the terrible mixing of metaphors there.

Me saying 'I haven't given up' was a response to Doomcats:

'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.'

Yes ... I meant your post made perfect sense, sunshine ... oh, lord, I'm digging a hole deeper aren't I?!

dust - sorry, possibly I am missing something, but I don't understand why you're responding to me and talking about women waiting for men to end the patriarchy?

On the subject of 'liberation' (or 'empowerment' for that matter): I think it is crucial to recognize that not all women can 'liberate' or 'empower' themselves.

The way I look at it is this: any time any woman makes a step against the patriarchy (however small or personal), that is a thing to celebrate and I do believe it is an achievement for all women. But that doesn't mean women who don't do those things are to blame for the patriarchy continuing to exist, or that in celebrating one woman's achievements against the patriarchy, we're necessarily denigrating everyone else.

And I agree with your last post sunshine, it's hard to see the atrophy sometimes.
To walk into a toy shop and see banks of pink and blue, to turn on the TV and catch a flash of reality tv or the emaciated bodies of those that set the fashion.

Sorry, got to go and collect a child from a party.
Goodnight, it has been very interesting.

it's not feminists who put our problems into a little box rather than see it as a problem for society.

it is patriarchy that does that - re: childcare=woman's problem stick it in a little box marked women and children, not real citizens.

or violent assaults - a problem for society surely? not if it happens in your home and it's a man doing it to his partner then we get a special little box label called 'domestic violence'.

feminists try to take awful injustices swept under the rug as just a 'woman's problem' and put them in the light and reframe them as societal problems.

so i'm afraid your points there are utter shite hmm.

dust - i think this is where sunshine's critical mass point comes in because you can't do it on your own. i reckon we're back to (and will need to be again and again) needing consciousness raising. backlash has hit young women hard imo.

oh i missed a page somehow

agree with you sunshine on it being society that minimises problems as 'women's' when in fact they are societal problems, especially given how funnily enough we ARE society not some ghetto land outside of it. i think it's weird to accuse feminists of being the ones who do that when they clearly, imo, do the opposite.

I agree with you sAf. It is not feminists who put women's issues in a box. Society puts women's issues in a box marked 'back of the queue' and feminists are the ones who try to do something about those issues.

Often whilst being criticised and snarked at by the very people those issues concern.

As has been said before on this thread - if you want to know what happens when a woman asks society to give some real attention to women's rights just look at how Harriet Harman has been treated.

If HH had been a man bringing those issues to the fore he would have been applauded by all and sundry and probably be running the god-damn party. Harriet is vilified and has to sit quietly whilst a man with less experience than her takes lead.

Asking women to sort out the problems of patriarchy is like asking black people to dismantle apartheid. We will only be allowed to have that happen if those who hold the power decide so.

It is naive to the extreme to suggest otherwise. Just look at the current backlash. Just look at how gains we thought were secured are under attack currently.

This thread has made me despair TBH.

And just look at how many women criticise Harriet Harman. No doubt those women think women should be sorting out patriarchy's issues, and not waiting around for a man to do it, but when a woman does actually try to do that they crucify her.

Such is the nature of oppression unfortunately. It is a powerful thing and not to be underestimated.

I think we are making progress, just not enough. Has there ever been a better time to be born a woman?

one of the key next battles is to get sexism taken as seriously as racism.

Totally agree with Beachcomber and Nyac. Beachcomber's last post really resonates for me. Sorry I can't contribute anything more insightful!

The man with the sexist views from the OP came and posted here. My reaction to what the OP said was not incorrect.

Rather than talking about that, we've taken this into the realms of abstract.

It's still about women, not how men behave. We have direct examples here of male sexism, it would be better to deal with them.

Thanks for posting Lorde's whole piece IAOS.

This is the last paragraph:

"Racism and homophobia are real conditions of all our lives in this place and
time. I urge each one of us here to reach down into that deep place of
knowledge inside herself and touch that terror and loathing of any
difference that lives there. See whose face it wears. Then the personal as
the political can begin to illuminate all our choices."

She was talking about racism and homophobia. I don't think her words should be taken and used for other agendas. It's wrong.

Well certainly I'm another one who thinks that being blunt on the internet is in no way comparable to excluding people and discriminating against them by employing the constructions of an oppressive society. That strikes me as a pretty outrageous thing to say TBH.

I really really don't like it when people do that to a feminist who is speaking out against sexism.

I'm also cautious about thinking that women have never had it better. That seems like a naive thing to say considering the current pornification of society, the flourishing sex industry, the ostracising of radical feminism, single mothers and lesbian women. Plus the feminization of poverty, gendercide and the situation of women of colour and women outwith the west.

In the west we have made some gains but we sure as hell are being made to pay for it.

Would any of you be interested in starting some sort of "Feminism For Beginners" thread? Somewhere that people like mumwithdice can come on and ask a question with the admission that she isn't sure about something and would like to talk about it?

I understand we all need to do our own research and that no one pandered the more experienced of you but I think this board is a real resource and has many lurkers who want to get in there to talk and debate with you guys but don't want to come across as foolish.

All feminists start off somewhere and it would be great if we beginners could ask our (painfully obvious but necessary! :o) questions and be pointed in the right direction by you guys without worrying.

Just a thought!

Sorry, very much off topic there but I didn't want to start a thread about a thread.