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'm not defending sexist behaviour you are, garlic. You are saying to this man it is OK to be sexist about these women because of xyz. What Nyac said about 2 pages ago.

Women succumbing to socialization by internalising the norms of doing femininity, isn't sexist behaviour. It is submissive behaviour. It is what people do when they don't have any real power.

They may be enacting a sexist stereotype but they are not the originators of the stereotype.

May we paraphrase the original question as "Why do some women do this babygirl thing?"

Or are we obliged to paraphrase it as "Women are such dipsticks and I hate their breathy voices"? I didn't see him saying that, but maybe he was.

The OP says: 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.

Clearly our answers disagree, Abigail, Beach and Nyac.

If the babygirl thing worked reliably, there'd be a pragmatic defence for it. But it doesn't work as well as being a grown-up woman.

I can't ever agree that women don't bear any responsibility for their actions because we live in a patriarchy. If women bear no responsibility for their actions - even when their actions are sexist and harmful to feminism - then the patriarchal narrative of women's irresponsibility and inability to look after themselves must be true, no? Likewise, I'd venture, the narrative that sets women against themselves: for actions which contradict the feminist message are anti-women and disempowering for the actress.

there are certainly people who chose not to be part of the sisterhood and to instead jostle for pecking order amongst women and therefore enjoy slagging off other women to establish their superiority.

plenty of evidence of that on this thread.

Beach, I've not suggested they're the originators.

Well then what is sexist about it then?

You make a good point there, SAF. How come I may be called anti-women for my views here, while the simpers-at-men woman is just doing her thang? Am I worth less than her, to feminist eyes?

Beach: I would be repeating myself.

garlic it's a rite of passage on fem topic bingo

anti women
ant feminist
what about da menz
rape apologist

house!clickety click I've had all of em

I can't ever agree that women don't bear any responsibility for their actions because we live in a patriarchy.

But nobody is arguing that. What has been argued is that women (and men) are socialized to behave in certain ways. And that socialization is a force to be reckoned with. And women (as the oppressed group) make deals with the patriarchy. All of us.

Teeny bit more complex.

Same can be applied to men with the additional factor that they are in charge of the society that does the socialization. No?

beachcomber the socialisation is done by men and women, surely?

I chose not to believe in sisterhood,it's a social construct another way of keeping women in their place. and the place is with the other wimmin, not equally participating or up there with the men.it smacks of women know your place

and it's not about farmyard metaphors and pecking
it's an active ideological choice I have made
don't assume affinity based on gender
it's like hoe capable female politicians usually get wimins and social issues portfolio,as if that is women's innate interest. as opposed to economics
and hardstuff

Well I'm still confused garlicbutter - I'm not getting what is sexist about women complying with a sexist stereotype that they are not the originators of, and which places them in a submissive position (in a society that oppresses them and fetishizes their submission).

Isn't to suggest that the actions of such women is sexist to do exactly what Edam said earlier "misogyny blaming women for the effects of misogyny"?

Sure looks like it to me.

Me, too, sm :) Got a full house, but no prize.

Agree with your 20:33 post, Beach. All I'm saying that the specific behaviour under discussion is aberrant. It's exaggerated female-to-male, submissive communication. Its negative impacts far outweigh any positives, so it's not only aberrant but dysfunctional. Alternative behaviours are readily available, widely modelled and imo should be encouraged because they're more effective.

I'm still not getting why the above paragraph is anti-women (and am still listening.)

no one is worth more but one is directly slagging off other women whilst calling oneself feminist. i think i see that as a greater betrayal perhaps and one done with a lot more awareness quite likely and without any coercion (as in there is no incentive to slag off women here such as their may be an incentive to perform femininity in a patriarchal institution).

scottishmummy I agree with all that you said there.

beachcomber the socialisation is done by men and women, surely?

Yes. In male dominated society. The women don't make the rules - they just live and die by them.

The role of the women is called collusion/internalization. It is a survival technique. See women keeping up the traditions of foot binding, FGM, etc for extreme examples.

Classic behaviour of the oppressed. Sign of a successful oppressive regime. Very successful.

The responsibility for what goes on at societal level in male dominated society lies with those who dominate, those who make the rules, those who have power, those who reign supreme.

I am going to have to give up, after all.

This discussion has now planted a new image of feminism in my mind: Feminism thrusts its cleavage in front of the CEO of Patriarchy, smiles coyly through its teasing curtain of hair and purrs, breathily, "Oh, Mr Patriarch, you're so big and strong! I wish I could be clever like you!" It giggles then, leaning even closer, purrs softly: "Mr Patriarch, give women a chance, won't you? We won't be any trouble! Just a few little seats on the board? Pleeeease?"

I really want that image out of my head.

Alright, so the women who continue to bind feet, mutilate genitalia, or at the softer end of things raise their sons to never do the dishes and their daughters to intenalise that they must aspire to be homemakers are excused from perpetuating all this shit, because they've been socialised to do it and can't help themselves.

Whilst the men who have been socialised to do it have magic powers to break this vicious circle if they only wanted to.

What a low opinion of women you have.

YY, WW.

Oh I don't have a low opinion of women. I get the sisterhood you see. I think women are awesome.

I just don't underestimate what we are up against.

Women conforming to gender stereotypes is hugely sexist and damaging. Because it says to men 'yes, we are weak and feeble and we need men to do stuff for us'. Individual women who do this benefit in the short term because they get rewarded, just as individual men benefit in the short term by toeing the line, regardless of the long-term benefits to the patriarchy which I suspect are transparent to the average man as they are to the average woman.

with adulthood comes responsibility,volition,free will
and one simply cannot excuse female dysfunction by saying men made women do it

there was sad news story female left her kids in faeces,inadequate diet,insanitary environment, unsupervised until neighbors alerted police. no one coerced her compelled her.no malevolent male.just a lassie who didn't prioritize her children basic needs. she needs to accountable,and take responsibility.

Garlicbutter, you are being a sillybilly now!

I didn't say it was feminist to enact sexist stereotypes. Anyone would think that you were twisting what I was saying with your above post!

I'm fine with people asking me to clarify if my points aren't clear first time round.

So was it worth it garlicbutter? All the arguing and protesting, all those of us that refused to roll over and play the game and were mocked for being strident hairy-legged harpies in the 70s?
The refusal to accept our sanctioned destination as mothers and housewives, maybe with a little job until the children came along?
We tried to make women see that the boundaries were there to be broken by us, that we could be engineers and doctors and drive cars despite the disapproval and horror of the men, and many of our fellow women. To empower ourselves into believing that you could be an equal partner in a relationship, without all the pandering and a hot meal on the table and a ribbon in your hair and a clean bed. But it took self-awareness and courage and was a very hard and dangerous road for many to take. But thousands did.
What was the point?
To have women still performing the same antics, but in the workplace instead of the home and for it to be still that we wait for men to give us the same level of privilege that they have.

'The responsibility for what goes on at societal level in male dominated society lies with those who dominate, those who make the rules, those who have power, those who reign supreme.'

And we should accept that all the power is in their hands and we should wait until they are ready to share?

In another generation, do you think the attitudes of many posters on the thread will be considered as out of date and incorrect as garlicbutter and mine?