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.

David Beckham speaks like a little boy. It never stopped him being respected, being captain of Man U or England. It's hardly ever been mentioned.

Because when a man does it it doesn't matter. Men don't have misogynistic rules ranged against them.

"IT person tries to teach me how to resolve the issue by myself the next time. I am simply not interested. "

I hate that attitude, no matter whether it comes from a man or a woman. The IT person will not expect the average common non-ITler to learn to code like some master hacker. Because that's his or her own job.

However it's not wrong to expect the average common non-ITler to show a minimum amount of interest in trying to to resolve easy things themselves, instead of rocking up and asking them to drop whatever stuff their doing immediately, because Ms "I've got more important things to do than press F1" can't work out why something pretty basic doesn't work. It slows down work and is pretty unproductive for everyone involved.

It's still not a feminist issue. It's an IT issue.

And there are men who don't like pressing F1, so why pretend it's just Ms?

Apart from sexism.

Nyac

I have said "I don't care whether that attitude comes from a man or a woman".

I said "Ms" as the poster who said that she's got more important things to do is a woman. I probably should have written Ms or Mr. Sorry about that.

And yes, that behaviour can be found in either sex, so it's not a feminist issue, but just a annoying timewasting twit who will keep producing the same fucking problem over and over again because he/she doesn't give a damn about learning how to avoid it issue.

Still it's the context of what started the thread, and I replied to a posting on this thread commenting on the IT context.

A whole lot of people think that the OP's husband has every right to judge women.

And there was me thinking it was pretty human for just about everyone to judge everyone else in someway.

- Passes stones round and asks who would like to be the first to throw one -

Yes, it's down to every feminist (male or female) to challenge sexist behaviour. But I can't blame women who play the game and do what it takes to get ahead in a sexist world. Well, I can, but I can also see that while switching into a breathy, high-pitched voice may not be good for the sisterhood as a whole, it might work for the individual. Or appear to work for the individual.

So, do I disapprove of da system that makes that a viable choice for an individual woman? Of course. Do I disapprove of the men who react positively to breathy high-pitched voice? Maybe, or maybe it's all unconscious conditioning... Do I disapprove of women who switch into breathy, high-pitched voice to persuade a man to help them? Maybe that's a valid choice in a rotten system. Or maybe it's conditioning. Or maybe it's not a choice I consider valid myself, but as a feminist I have to approve of choice, or something?

(Actually after watching government policy on public services during the Blair era and currently, I am starting to really dislike the word 'choice'. Often it's a fake choice and actually cover for privatization or worse services or both. I am starting to really suspect that word whenever it's used outside the 'my body, my choice' context.)

Hmmm - I'm told it's not judging if you call it political analysis. Potayto potahto.

Oh of course. Silly me WW.

Its AMAZING what you can do in the name of political analysis. Isn't it a bit like when people go "I'm not racist but". Shall we apply that here?

"I'm not sexist but this man is obviously being a typical misogynist and hates all women based on a short couple of paragraphs posted by a third party"

Arf arf.

Second party, surely, given they are married? (Maybe I'm thinking of third party fire and theft rather than good grammar...)

Second hand. Third party.

Same thing.

Except that said man then came on and made his sexism clear for all to see.

Just not many commented on it.

Oddly.

I didn't find him particularly sexist, actually. Maybe those who did are in the minority, hence it didn't get much comment?

His attitudes to the women he does work for is sexist.

It's a misuse of the word sexism to call pointing that out sexist.

I read it as him being just as pissed off with the problem as anyone else here might be about it.

But cos he's a bloke, he gets the blame and called all manner of things.

But there you go. I think it says as much about any of us as it does about that guy. I'm not sure it necessarily reflects well on anyone.

What he said was

"Opinions attributed to me may not be opinions I in fact hold. Women in my office are, contra the OP, actually a superb bunch and never the cause of the sort of problem that you got a weird warped description of. TBH, as an unworldly computer type and strict monogamist, I don't care what chromosomes or plumbing someone has as long as they ask me interesting technical questions! However, if losing respect for an external supplier on the 'phone when she drops the business attitude for a simper and says "that's hard, can you do it for me" or "that's a technical thing, I'll get my husband to do it" (true, and eww - is it still 1912?) makes me a monster, then I guess I'll have to learn to be happy with that label"

If that makes him a sexist, then I'm a sexist, too.

I dunno, he did say he's annoyed by women who simper or say 'I'll get my husband to do that' but also said male problem callers annoy him. Depends whether he blames men as a group for the male problem callers, or treats male problem callers as representative of their gender. But he was commenting on the issue at the heart of this thread, so it's excusable that he didn't go into irritating male callers, although it would have been interesting to see how he described them and ascribed their behaviour to gender.

Cross post!

I do sometimes say 'I should ask my husband about that' but only where it's relevant - and I do explain that he's a web content editor, rather than believing that possession of a penis makes him a computer expert (he's not but he is able to translate between techies and clients).

(Actually I usually say 'I suppose I should ask my husband about that but by the time we've got ds into bed we are usually only good for slumping in front of old episodes of QI...')

Oh - there's nothing wrong to ask husbands for help, or other people in general for help.

If I get stuck, my husband is my No1 go to excel wizard. But he's not spouting spreadsheet magic from his penis. It's just that he's vastly more experienced with it than I am, as he works more with it, so he can teach me stuff or give me pointers. If I expected him to do my work for me because I think he'd politely tell me to bugger off, though.

I don't know where that because came from. Ignore it.

If anyone thinks "I'll get my husband to do it" is an appropriate workplace statement in the 21st century I suspect I cannot meaningfully converse with them in any case.

I was referring to this bit actually.

I've just read this whole thread in one go. Do I get a medal?

Dust and Garlic - you both sound like you're one hoik of the Overton Window away from being radfems with your desire to change the system in a fundamental way. Wrenching the power away from those holding it etc. The 80s feminists (who I now think of as 3rd wavers and the funs as 4th) tried that and from my observation it got them Second Shifts, Prozac and rehab/therapy/1st World spiritualism but with a miniscule wrenching of power compared to the work of radfems or those with a single-minded pursuit of a particular issue (equal pay for speech therapists springs to mind, which had huge ramifications). Radfems got laws enacted, real help available for women in need and raised consciousnesses that women complying with the status quo weren't the problem - that was the system. You both know all this. So why the continued focus on on individual women when it is the system at fault? One woman, or even a hundred thousand spread throughout the country, who stops playing the patriarchal game alone creates an (?greater than) equal and opposite reaction. For what gain? FFS, even Gore Vidal sees this (in some senses) and he is no feminist.

My main problem wasn't the dipshit girly behaviour, it was being told that it's not OK to despise it and call it anti-feminist. That's why I kept arguing. I also disagreed that the poster was necessarily MCP. My brain's gone to sleep - I just stayed up after it to finish my drink - so I can't drill down any more right now. Just wanted to restate a basic.

Yes, I would say I am a radical feminist but not in the same way as "this board". If we can't raise awareness to the millions of small things that make up an unfair system, we stand no chance! The millions of small ways women contribute to an unfair status quo are part of this. I do not feel I should be silenced when helping a woman to step out of a subservient role.

I know none of "you" would want that, either, which is why I'm so often surprised by these discussions.

dust - thanks for responding i can only assure you that most feminists here share your frustration.

"But isn't there a whole group of women saying that these are feminist choices?
Were't they called third wave feminism or something?"

they are calling themselves feminists - i'm not. the choicey choice brigade are indeed, imo, part of the backlash and a patriarchal appropriation of feminism - re: the sexual revolution actually being a switch from right wing men keeping women as wives and property that they can fuck, to lefty men wanting women constantly sexually available so they can fuck as many women as they like and call them 'liberated'.

the thing is by ignoring or scorning those women in your time what was achieved? you can't slag us off realistically for still facing the same problems, and more, that you faced a few decades ago. you can be frustrated as hell at patriarchy and the state of things but not at us who are still trying to fight it. you'll find very, very few people here who are into choicey feminism. what you are seeing is people refusing to get into women blaming because let's face it that's been tried hasn't it? and it didn't work by your own admission.

not everyone is a fighter. i'm sure when black people were trying to unite and combat racism it was frustrating for them to see some of their brothers and sisters not fighting beside them but doing things and being things that made their lives safer and easier and in the process could be accused of propping up racism but fighting each other wouldn't have helped would it? the problem was the racist system set up by white men and being profited from by whites - to not focus on that would have been to sink into blaming black people for their own oppression which would be collaborating with the white man who'd have happily agreed that yes it was black people's fault and because of ways they behaved etc.

grr child literally on top of me. hope this made some sense.

SAF You might not think that someone can be liberal and a feminist at the same time - but I'd rather lose the "feminist" label than the "liberal" one.

Where's the point in removing oppression by the patriarchy, if you replace it by feminist oppression. But I guess that's the problem with any ideology - at some point sooner or later it swings over to doing exactly the same thing as what it claims to stand against.

And don't give me that "oh, it's just political analysis and has nowt to do with personal choices", please, because that's bull.

you're arguing with the wrong person here WW given i've been advising against judging and policing other women's behaviour from the start. you've been, i thought, on the other side of the debate advocating it so i'm a little confused.

on the one hand feminists get accused of telling women what to do (which we don't) and then when we defend women not behaving in feminist ways we're wrong for that. for some people the only real objective is for feminists to be wrong regardless of whether that involves totally inconsistent arguing and posturing.