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.

Orm, I think it is neither.

For me it is about taking the focus off the women and shining a light on male supremacy and how it manifests. When you do that, some women will then of their own accord, question things and act differently. That is what consciousness raising is.

no i'm not implying it is their job. i think that's obvious and to be honest i can't be bothered to argue where the objective seems to be to argue

seems like whatever i said ww there'd be no real engagement with the content but just grabbing onto whichever group of three words could be taken out of the post and argued with.

frankly i don't have the energy for that - i've just had to transform my kitchen into a finger painting zone in order to return to the thread with a cup of coffee and catch up.

omirian - more signs of progress - like it when people get thinking and questioning instead of just polemics arguing.

i think one thing to remember is that not all women are feminists so feminists can't be held responsible for all women's actions or influence all women's actions but none the less it has to care for the interests of all women and not add to their oppression by blaming them for the patriarchy. much like black freedom fighters under apartheid couldn't blame someone who acted out their role with quiet submission and saw things as the way they were and not changeable and resigned themselves to it. it was still apartheid and white supremacy that was the enemy, not the black people who had internalised it's values.

really waffling now as trying to type fast to get back to the kitchen before it's plastered. god damn school holidays!

"seems like whatever i said ww there'd be no real engagement with the content but just grabbing onto whichever group of three words could be taken out of the post and argued with"

The feelings mutual. I've got to go to work now, so can't continue arguing on here anyway.

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.

Radical feminism is about liberating women from male violence and domination. It isn't about removing choices from women.

i may be way out there on my own but this thread has made me feel a little hopeful that we can communicate and get out of the polemics (and bear in mind some have a vested interest in trying to reduce us to arguing polemics and appear for that very purpose) and discuss things in an exploratory way instead.

i may just be having an optimistic week or something

i dunno - i think sometimes it would have to be about removing choices from women. i would like to see prostitution stop for the sake of all of those that it isn't a choice for and is forced by circumstances and the system. that would mean removing the choice to do it for those few happy hookers who see it as a valid choice. likewise i'd like to remove a woman's choice to watch another woman being raped on camera - because her choice to want to wank over the abuse of other women doesn't interest me in the slightest as something to preserve.

sorry. thinking aloud.

I dislike polemic arguments and ranting, so I tend to leave once it begins in any scenario. I like discussion and debate, and the most informative are often held between people that don't agree with each other but respect the argument.
That's not because I want women to be quiet and concilliatory and not rock the boat, more that I switch off when being lectured or harangued. I've zoned out of staff meetings because of that.

removing choices?
uneasy with that, if adult has capacity, can understand ramifications, weigh up pro and cons then as much as I may not like the choice I don't feel state or others should necessarily remove choices

I see that as problematic in a gamut of other areas too eg
illicit drug use
whilst knee jerk reaction may be well just stop it,remove the choice.it's not that straightforward

to moderate and change behaviors,the individual has to
wish to change the behavior
make active conscious behavioral modification.

it is notoriously hard to remove choice and facilitate change

I don't think this thread progressed at all.

The topic still ended up about being women and what they should do, instead of addressing concrete sexist male behaviour which we saw on this thread and needs challenging.

Feminsim isn't about women getting together within our continuing oppression, it's about ending sexist and misogynist male behaviour.

"getting on together"

your preoccupation is male sexism
you minimise female sexism or dismiss it as function of patriarchy

"dipshit girly behaviour"

This is sexist.

"I also disagreed that the poster was necessarily MCP"

You attack women, but you can't see when men are being sexist. How is that feminist? Seriously, how?

of course we remove choices - decide some choices are not valid - that's what a society is ffs and why it has a legal system.

sure things that only effect you are personal but things that effect others are different eg. a pedophile cannot choose the sexual partner and practice he wants without abusing a child so we say no to that choice because we deem a childs right not to be abused as greater than a man's right to have sex with a child because he wants to.

none of this is rocket science obviously so again, arguing for arguing's sake and refusing to move on into discussion so as the discussion moves on grabbing a few words from a post and tangenting off into a polemic argument about that.

do try keep composed saf

I am exploring the balance if when a state intervenes in behavior eg smoking ban, and when it doesn't eg prostitution

now you may ideological favor big state intervention
I more favor a case by case basis

now some would ban pg women smoking and alcohol,as it is potentially harmful
others see this as a state intrusion and control and unacceptable

so this is valid for discussion,and it is an ideological biggie.when does state intervene, and when does it not

perfectly composed thanks.

and i think my answer made my position clear - at the point that your behaviour is abusing others then there needs to be intervention to protect people. as i said not rocket science and just a detraction.

You know radical feminism means going to the root, going to the root of the causes of patriarchy and misogyny.

So the lib fem approach would be to take the OP at face value, and not notice the power dynamics involved in a man reporting to his wife about women he disrespected and viewed in a sexist way. The discussion can safely stay on women and what they are doing wrong, because it's not scary, it's not challenging to men (men might actually fight back whereas women have the whole of patriarchy ranged against us supporting criticism and undermining of us). That's the liberal approach. It never goes very far, but it does offer the opportunity for a nice line in misogyny when criticising women e.g. "simpering", "babydoll women", "dipshit girly behaviour".

On the other hand radical feminism takes its analysis as far as it can go. So why do women behave in a submissive manner? Well that's because men dominate and oppress us. It's not a fantasy, it's a reality. Submission is a survival response when you're being dominated. Women's oppression is real and it's caused by men. It's not just a few women behaving "wrongly" because they apparently don't know any better. It's the men behaving in an oppressive, sexist or misogynist way that we need to look at, because by taking their behaviour apart and analysing it we will begin to change things.

And of course there's the other analysis - that this guy was simply imagining it because he has a demonstrably sexist attitude to women, and needs to scrape together some very tenuous excuses as to why that is justified. That is still my guess in this situation. If that's the case, why we are still talking about women, and not him and what he did, and what other similar men do to women is anybody's guess.

This question asked why feminsim apparently doesn't hold women responsible for sexism, I think a better question would be why doesn't liberal feminism want to hold men accountable for theirs.

ok,your post was somewhat tetchy
but yes ideologically I find it challenging determining when state dies or doesn't intervene

sometimes it's obvious and clear cut,and the state gives professionals a range of statutory duties, and applies sanctions to behavior considered dysfunctional

sometimes it's hotly contested

but you see saf, it isn't as clear cut as not rocket science

yes maybe in some areas there are unanimity and clarity, but not so in all difficult social moral decisions. and yes thats why we have judiciary to make and interpret law.and why people agitate on a range of issues

Can we just talk about how men attack women full stop. How they undermine us, criticise us, make our lives difficult for us e.g. in the workplace.

Even talking about how men turn us against each other, is still talking about women.

I would really like to talk about male behaviour full stop. That's the problem. That's what needs to change.

lets talk female and male sexism
your habitual preoccupation with male sexism overlooks and diminishes females are sexist too. despite mimed IRS accounts on this thread of impact of female sexism upon other women

let's talk sexism, yes
it's pernicious impact
and that female and male perpetrate sexism

It is obvious and clear, but people won't talk about it and instead want to blame women at every turn.

This thread is a great example. The OP's husband almost got a free ride, in the scramble to talk about babydoll women who apparently are behaving in a "sexist" way.

If we don't talk about how women behave, say for the next twenty years, and focus solely and carefully on what men do to women then things are likely to change.