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 don't think anybody is saying that other people cannot despise a certain sort of behaviour.

Certainly what I am saying is don't despise the woman exhibiting that behaviour and place the blame for the behaviour where it belongs - on oppression. Despise the oppression that the behaviour originates from.

This is one thing that feminism has taught me - to respect other women and to feel solidarity with them. When a woman complies with patriarchy by tottering around in high heels and fluttering her eyelashes, I don't agree with her actions, and I don't think they are feminist actions in and of themselves, but I understand why some women exhibit that behaviour.

Like I said before, feminine behaviour like this is part of a spectrum, and we are all on that spectrum somewhere. It is self-hating to criticise how other women's femininity manifests on this spectrum.

If you'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." why do you then suddenly come out with
"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"

Are you not aware that saying that women who advocate choice means they can't be feminists is judging them?

What exactly is oppressive about feminists saying 'I don't wish to judge or police other women and blame them for their own oppression. I wish us all to be liberated from that oppression'?

seriously it has been the rad fems who usually get accused of telling other women how to behave (erroneously) on here who've been defending women being slagged off for their behaviour and saying we can't dictate to them how to behave in patriarchy.

the irony is right there staring out us! i'm not sure how to deal with it.

it is like shadow boxing because the goals are moving all over the place. no we're not saying behaviour x is feminist but we're also acknowledging we don't have the right to dictate to someone how to behave or to judge them for behaving in ways they perceive as helping them get by in patriarchy OR behaviours that they use unconsciously because they've been raised and groomed to do so.

judging a woman for performing femininity with a man at work is like judging a child for having sex with the paedophile who groomed her to do so. and no i'm not saying women are children but that there is a grooming process in our socialisation which tries to feminise us into a gender performance the fact that the socialisation is successful on some is hardly surprising is it? we can lament that consciousness has not been raised enough, we can lament that it is human nature often to take the easiest (in the immediate) route and path of least resistance, we can lament plenty but berrating individuals doesn't help.

feminism always tries to condemn the system rather than the women in it - re: if anti prostitution it isn't prostitutes that are the enemy to be judged but the pimps and johns and the whole culture that promotes the right to stick your cock in someone as somehow sacrosanct.

sorry - prob awful cross posting gone on.

because i don't agree that that is feminism or serves women as a group in moving forward to greater liberation and equality WW. so no, i don't call that feminism and i believe it is counter productive to the feminist movement.

i don't attack the women making the choices though - just disagree with them if they say that those choices are feminist.

This thread is turning out to be like some kind of weird satire.

Radfems are at fault because they are perceived to police other women and oppress them.
Radfems explain that they don't police other women and that that is not what they stand for. Now that is oppressive and having a low opinion of women. Or summat.

Is this just a case of radical feminists are Wrong no matter what they do? If we don't slag off other women we aren't advancing The Cause and if we do slag off other women we are oppressing them.

I think I've got it now.

Just not sure where women being the worst sexists fits in.

Perhaps the vast majority of women in our society are happy with the status quo and don't want it to change. Don't feel in need of rescuing or liberating or any form of what they think feminism is?
So they have problems with individual examples of sexism and aggression as it impacts on them, but feel that feminism as a philosophy, movement or labelled lifestyle is irrelevant to their lives and the lives of those they know.
That might be why this board is often criticised by people that choose not to identify as feminists and mind that they feel others are trying to speak for them, or that they feel criticised as individuals. Whether that is actually happening or not.

no i think we're making progress.

dust for example is clearly radfem in broad principles but assumed we were something else i think. there was definite miscommunication there imo - though she may come on and tell me i'm wrong and she hates me

some are clearly just here for the shit stir and that's inevitable.

i reckon we're reaching a point where apart from those who are just in it for the stirring can see we have more in common than not and it is only minor attitudinal differences that are being blown up into polemics and tabloid headlines.

I am really not here to shit stir or intentionally upset people, I enjoy having to think about the choices I make and the opinions I hold, and the way that sometimes other people impact on those beliefs and actions. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I am startled by how strongly I don't.

x post you may have a point there dust.

also extending on it that some women call themselves feminists who to use your example have problems with individual examples of sexism but don't actually see any relevance or need for feminism on a larger scale, as a philosophy and movement etc. then they're offended when other people who call themselves feminists mean something different - a whole political philosophy that encompasses a far wider scope that they don't subscribe to but still like to think of themselves as feminists.
not expressed that clearly sorry.

For example, I'm still examining the sense of relief that I felt when you mentioned you have a son SAF, and why that should make me feel like that.

yeah i believe you dust actually. and must admit i had a different opinion than that prior to the progress we've made on this thread and your explanation of your feminism when you were younger which sounds remarkably similar to my own.

At least I think it was you.

i do have a son. why did you feel that? that i shouldn't have a daughter or that me having a son was a good thing? curiousity is piqued!

SAF - the thing is that I don't believe the default state of women is that they can't help it because they're just socialised to do it. Some women can be manipulative, and they know exactly what they're doing. They don't deserve special extra slack just because they happen to be women. That's of course not true for every woman, some of them really are naive/can't help it, but that's not because they are women, it's more complicated than that.

Giving women by default the benefit of the doubt (whilst by default always assume the worst when it's a man by default) is supporting the status quo in my opinion much more than saying "that behaviour is shite" and it's shitty of you to do it.

I'm not seeing a lot if difference between women who change their behaviour to conform to patriarchal stereotypes and those changing their behaviour to avoid those stereotypes. Our behaviour is still altering according to parameters and standards set by a patriarchy.

How a woman behaves in an abusive relationship does not change the fact that the man is abusive. He doesn't stop being abusive because she conforms or because she stands up to him. And she will only stand up to him until the penalties are too great. And even if she does conform to his behavioural expectations he will change those expectations as it suits him.

Because.that.is.how.oppression.works.

Look at the Bundesbank thread further down. Women behaving like thousands of men they work with, bucking the gender stereotypes, except now the world crisis is down to them. Pretty high penalty to pay. Damned if you do damned if you don't.

It doesn't matter how women behave, the oppression will still be there. It doesn't matter if no woman in the world spoke with a breathy voice, another damning stereotype would take its place. One that is still engineered by the patriarchy. Maybe one that you display, garlic, WW et al. And the actions of individual women would still be proof and reason to condemn all women, in ways that just aren't done to men.

i think there's an overlap with the class thread here - i'd say that a significant proportion of middle class women possibly are happy with things as they are - they've gained the most from the concessions gained by the second wave and have been able to improve their lot OVER other women and by a balance of using the concessions won and using the tools that work in patriarchy (i'll stop short of handmaiden accusations).

so they can say it's all fine, it's all about chooses, just earn a lot of money and pay someone else minimum wage to look after your kids and look down on those who made the wrong 'choices' because it's easy - look at me! they can sit back and enjoy the labour of women beneath them in the pecking order as they escape their own childcare and cleaning and be safe in the knowledge it's not them who'll be expected to sell their bodies to cater to the ever increasing demands of the sex industry etc.

there are some sitting in ivory towers who want to say the battle is won because i'm alright jack.

sorry - way off the purpose of the thread now.

I don't know how to say this without upsetting or offending anyone who might feel there is a criticism embedded within my words, but I'll have a go.
I don't think having children has any relevance to one's beliefs, that a person with children is in any way superior or inferior to one without.
I respect and admire SGM a great deal, and she has daughters, and I'm sure there are others here that I feel the same level of respect and admiration and I have't a clue as to whether they have children or not, and what gender they are.

I think it might be that I think having a son and a daughter has given me an additional perspective as to why situations might occur and how some unacceptable attitudes and behaviours occur and how to challenge them in both of my children.
I was relieved that you have a son and love him and thus would be looking for ways to guide him towards feminist values. Perspective. that when he makes a sexist comment you will respond as an informed parent and not as an outraged woman who wants to smash him to the touchline. You can't just leave the bastard who is adopting an abusive attitude if he's your child and not your partner.
Or it could be something else, I'm still thinking it through.

What AbigailAdams said.

to continue my last post....

and they then comfort themselves with this choice bollocks - oh women choose to be prostitutes, to be porn stars, to pole dance etc it's empowering for them they obviously want to do it and are happy to do it and what's wrong with that?

and it's bollocks of course because from their ivory towers they can ignore the real circumstances and politics and oppressions that are involved.

the choice bollox is, in a way, the cognitive dissonance of the privileged. the conscience salve for those in the ivory towers.

Well, maybe they don't escape their own childcare and cleaning anymore than their husbands. (As far as my own family is concerned, we're not paying anyone to do the cleaning, but we pay for childcare - which is done by men and women, who do a sterling job and we don't look down on, but are grateful for. There's no shame in admitting that one is not good at keeping a small child entertained and stimulated all day every day)

The argument that cosy middleclass women just reap the rewards kind of implies that they escape something which still should be their job.

My whole argument is that women aren't too different from men, and they shouldn't be. I feel that radfem ideology is partly about "liberating" women from things that they maybe don't actually want to be liberated of, but want to enjoy as a valid choice.

As it is, I don't think the sex industry is something which will be ever gone totally, as humans of any gender enjoy sex too much. So personally I'd prefer a situation where it is regulated properly, so abuse is stopped in its track, rather than driving it underground, where abuse is much more likely to happen.

Oh. Right. Bugger! I don't know what I think now ....

On the one hand women performing stereotypical feminine roles makes me grind my teeth in frustration! Particularly when so many of these women use their feminity as a tool in the war against other women - ie I'm more 'girly' than you, men like me more etc.

On the other hand I can totally see why it is wrong and unfair to critisise women for doing what they subconsciously feel they have to. And feminism should not be about attacking women.

But the reason it all seems so crazy to someone like me (feminist-lite I guess) is that to my knowledge most women don't acknowlege their suppression in our society. They happily take on the mantel of 'girls' and revel in the pinkness and sparkliness of it all. Which is why so many women on MN get angry with the feminist board because they don't understand why feminism says and does what it says and does. They will roll their eyes at a sexist joke probably but it doesn't occur to them that the sexist joke is, like wearing 6 inch heels and obsessing about weight, the tip of the iceberg. Whereas there can't have been many black Americans who were not precisely aware of their different treatment and prospects.

Feminism is a movement by women for women, so shouldn't it be women that carry it forward. If the personal is political then everything we do carries weight - all of it, all of us.

If men are the beneficiaries of the patriarchy (and I still argue that that isn't always the case) why do we expect them to be the ones to make all the changes - what's in it for them, to put it crudely? But actually I suspect that for the vast majority of men the existence of the patriarchy is as invisible as it is to most women. There are men who want to stay at home with the children, who don't like strip clubs, who are empathetic and sensitive etc but find those impulses crushed by the machine unless they are a lot stronger than people generally are.

So anyway, the consequence of that was the we should be raising the consciousness of all women by telling them when they appear to be behaving like idiots rather than turning a blind eye and saying 'poor dears can't help it!'. If we don't start with women where do we start?

it's legitimate to acknowledge some women are sexist
it's legitimate to challenge it,as indeed one would challenge a male sexist
what isn't legitimate is to steadfastly refuse to acknowledge some women can
be sexist,or minimize or excuse it as menz made em do it,patriarchy and hegemony yadda yadda

adults have to take responsibility for, and acknowledge their own actions. and the impact ones behaviours /actions have upon others

this notion that women are so manipulated by omnipotent patriarchy that their behavior is not their own is absolutely galling