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.

Why aren't we talking about sexist men.

The brotherhood is based on contempt for and hatred of women.

Nyac, I posted on the previous page a theory - only a theory - about male sexism at work. Nobody has said a word about it. Is it that bad a theory?

'It's sexist to expect women to behave in a such a superhuman way.'

I'm beginning to wonder if there's anything that isn't sexist, frankly.

Sanjeev, that's down to personal politics. I tend to think that capitalism will always work against equality unless we fundamentally change our value system and accept that things that do not generate hard cash have a value equal to, if not superior to, those that do. Other feminists have no problem reconciling feminism with a capitalist economy. That's probably why you're not getting a reply - because you'll get as many different answers as there are feminists.

you've not wavered in talking about sexist men nyac
it's never been far from your posts,don't fear you've not neglected the penis rules

How about we try something different here: Ways the sisterhood has helped me.

1: It helped me escape an abusive relationship.

1. It helped me come to terms with each of my rapes. I know I can't undo them, but it helped me to stop blaming myself for each of them.

1. It has defended me when I felt I had no one else on my side.

1. It has supported my rights as a single mother; it has never criticised me for being such, or implied that DS is missing out by not having a father figure in his life.

1. It helped me recover from the after effects of the abusive relationship. The number of times users like Nyac, SGM, AF, SAF; so many of the regulars have helped myself, or others through flashbacks, through panic attacks, it's unbelievable. I still have flashbacks, occasionally. But I don't live in fear anymore. And that's thanks to the sisterhood

1. They helped me to see that a friendship was damaging, and as a result I eventually put that friendship behind me.

1. Just this weekend gone, I've been harassed by a male colleague. If it wasn't for the sisterhood, I probably would have been completely at a loss for how to deal with it.

The sisterhood isn't just here, mind. It's everywhere that you find women standing up for each other, defending each other, and reminding each other that, for all the shitty things that women get put through, we're not to blame. It's there, when charities like Women's Aid and Refuge help another woman out of an abusive relationship, and it's there when another Rape Crisis advisor helps another survivor realise she wasn't to blame for what happened to her. I believe in the sisterhood. Would take a lot of naivety to deny it exists.

Thanks for at least reading it sunshine.

.it's heartening you found support and solace at time of need
I too have been fortunate to have had great male and female friends and family when things have been fraught. my support wasn't solely derived from females

and no i don't believe in sisterhood,it requires a unanimity and presupposes affinity

OK found it - NeanderChap. One post.

I agree (still!) that the female behaviour he describes is anti-feminist. I posted, as have others, that there are plenty of stereotyped male behaviours that piss me off, as well. However this isn't about those; it's specifically about the babygirl act described in the OP, and which the majority of us have witnessed frequently IRL.

When a bright woman tells me she's too stupid to do a thing, or a woman calls herself ugly, I feel sympathy, pity and anger. The anger is because somebody made her believe she's inadequate. I would tend to assume, lacking other information, she received that message due to patriarchal influences and quite likely from specific men.

By contrast, when a bright woman puts on a babygirl act to elicit help from a man - or flirts inappropriately - I feel a lot less sympathy for her. My view is that she's perpetuating a "big man, little woman" stereotype. I assume she does it because she believes men are fools who can be manipulated easily by women who appeal to them by being both sexy and childlike. I dislike manipulative behaviour; I dislike conflations of sexiness with childishness; I dislike sexist assumptions. Therefore, I dislike this act.

To me there's a chasm between the woman with 'damaged' responses and the one playing the game. I understand that, in a patriarchy, the game actually can actually work. But, to me, this fact doesn't excuse the behaviour. I would like to see everyone asking women who do this to repeat themselves. Since some men are fools who fall for it, it's down to those who aren't so dumb to do that work. I wish someone had suggested it directly to NeanderChap.

I probably need to reiterate that I've got no problem with women whose voices really are 'babyish'. Julie Burchill's voice comes in for a bit of flak around here, but it really is her voice and she's as entitled as any other woman to speak with her own voice. But I can't pretend there are no women who put on a 'helpless little me' act - deliberately - specifically in order to work a sexist stereotype. I do not support those women in their manipulations.

You could say "If it works, why not do it?" My answer would be that asking a sensible question in your usual manner works, too, so why not do that and leave the gender stereotype out of it?

That took a long time to type; I see the discussion has diverted to greater matters.

do you presuppose non belief in sisterhood=not care about women?
that would be a galling assumption
i care about men,women, I care about people

so do you believe in feminism sm?

yes and I'm a beneficiary of someone else stance

Incidentally, I have been consulting this website for guidance on my personal ishoos: www.voicelessness.com/littlevoices.html

While it's all about the effects of dysfunctional families on their children's personal development, I feel it makes some interesting points that could be translated to the issues of women developing in a patriarchal society.

I was a classic case: inaudible voice, too much smiling, anorexia, overly deferent to authority figures and to men. My observation is that these effects - trying to be 'small' and to be 'pleasing' when visible - occur, not only in a bullying family but, more generally, to women growing up in a patriarchy.

And we're all growing up in a patriarchy, Garlic.

Hope you're making a recovery now. Is the site helping?

does the capitalist, free market system make sexist behaviour a great tool for personal advancement at work, and therefore inevitable?

You're on my turf, Sanjeev

It does make sexism a great tool, yes. However, it is not the only tool. As in every competition, intelligence may be pitted against brute strength and will often win. A business, huge or tiny, can evolve competitive advantages that do not conform to the 'big man' standard. The advantages can include: a happier and more committed workforce; better service; smaller overheads; faster responsiveness; flexibility; more innovation; crowd wisdom. There will be others.

It's more than a theory. Multinationals fall over themselves to gain those advantages, investing millions in consultants who specialise in 'clever' working. They then trip over themselves: clever working practices require wholesale abandonment of the rigid hierarchies that make them feel comfortable and important. Few can pull it off. The ones that can make more money; their old-school competitors scratch their heads, poach the staff, hire another consultant, and still fall down when they trip over the old school tie.

Permit me a

Cheers, Trophy :)

Giving me another perspective on what happened and how to proceed, yes, thank you!

It's also made me wonder if this is why I so often end up in an impasse here. See, I identified problems with the self I grew into and strove to address them. I fixed the voice and the anorexia first and am still having to watch out for the deference. The thing is, though, I accepted my responsibility to deal with the issues. I extrapolate this to women's responsibility for ourselves.

I could have carried on starving, whispering and simpering. I could have said "bad things happen to me because my daddy made me a victim" - which is true - and just carried on being a victim. After rather too many false starts, I figured out what to change and got on with it.

I'm trying to explain why, to me, saying "Take responsibility!" is not the same as victim blaming. Not sure I'm doing a terribly good job ...

I think you've made the most sense on this whole thread garlic :).

I understand where you're coming from, Garlic. But there's a difference between taking responsibility for how you deal with what happened to you, and taking responsibility for what happened to you? If that makes sense? :)

for example, (and I know we've clashed in the past on this) it makes little sense to tell a woman to not do x, y and z, so she doesn't experience a, b and c, but you can tell her that she can deal with a, b and c in certain ways.

(hope that makes sense)

Yes, I mostly agree, Trophy.

It's very unhelpful to take responsibility for what happened to you (I didn't make my daddy a bastard; women didn't make the partriarchy.)

When bad things happen, it's good to get help for dealing with the effects regardless of how you got hurt.

I like to look further, asking "What can I do reduce this danger in future?"
So that would include telling a woman to not do x, y and z, so she doesn't experience a, b and c.
On a personal level, this involved learning to speak audibly. In wider feminist terms - well, the same! Learning to say what you really mean, and to say it loudly enough (I keep coming back to assertiveness, don't I?!)
It would also include taking steps to reduce the aggressor's potential for harm.
My first step personally was to punch my father. In the wider arena, it includes supporting and using the laws we have, agitating for new ones, and more of course.

... accepting a responsibility to alter the power imbalance, then, by acting both inwardly and outwardly.

Hi Garlic. I am reading '23 things they don't tell you about capitalism', by Ha-Joon Chang. I am only part way through, but as an economist he talks about the things you mention. It's a cracking read, and has much to say about the workplace and the conduct of companies (and politicians).

Just to go back to what this thread is about - the OP's husband being sexist about the women he worked with, and the OP hoping to use feminism as a justification for his lack of respect for them, it might be helpful to spell out exactly what the dynamic is at work here.

The first thing to remember is that these are real women he works with. He really does have contact with them, his disrespect for them is real. So if the thread had gone the way the OP and some other people had hoped, we would have talked about how these women are behaving in a wrong way, that he was justified in his disrespect and she would have told him about it. He would actually have had feminists backing him up.

So what would have happened then? Well he'd have gone back to working with these women, and maybe a little of his disrespect would have shown throw. You know what it's like when you deal with men with attitudes like this - they block you, they don't listen to you, they aren't forthcoming, you know that there is something in the background but you just can't put your finger on it. You may not even be aware of how differently he will treat men - how the idea of disrespecting them doesn't even come into the equation - but with women it's par for the course. And not only that but he'll feel justified in his disrespect because feminists are saying that's what feminism is for - to have a go at women. How will women feel - well if they do what women are trained to do, they'll feel like it's their fault, it'll knock their self-esteem a bit, instead of it being easy to call the IT guy, there will always be this niggling feeling, because it's just not great to deal with. Whilst men are getting postitive reactions, women are facing disrespect and contempt. It's ongoing.

People say that patriarchy isn't a conspiracy. It's not (although men can act conspiratorially against women sometimes). What it is a a set of social values that the majority of people hold which see women as lesser than men, leading to real life interactions women are disrespected and devalued, often with men using those interactions to feel better about themselves. Not all the time obviously (for the peanut gallery) but enough to make life, including working life, hard going for women.

The difficulties that women face are amply demonstrated in the massive breadth of institutionalised sexism as manifested in women not getting promotions, not getting into positions of power, not being properly rewarded and too many times facing real direct discrimination at work.

Thats' why I got annoyed. The feminsit section isn't a place to bash women in a sexist way, certainly not to support men bashing women. If you're doing that, you're not a feminist and you need to think a bit harder about why you would even be interested in this section.

Oh, I see! I think ... ?

Hell, no, I wouldn't tell a woman not to wear something / walk somewhere so she didn't get raped Is that what you were thinking of?

This oft-quoted example is meaningless, because women do not cause rapists by wearing short skirts in dark alleys.

I would advise her to polish up her assertive skills - she'd need to, anyway, after such a trauma. Aside from that, though, the only relevant issue is how to get the existing procedures to be used properly - so that rape is seen as unequivocally the fault of a rapist, and punished accordingly.