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.

Chibi, Wasabi, I do think folks may have different expectations of say the politics and the Feminism/WR boards, just as they do from say AIBU and the Fish Net, iyswim. I don't know whether those expectations are always reasonable, but they are still probably there. I'm not saying those who see themselves as feminists shouldn't be questioned or challenged by others who see themselves as feminists here, but there will be ways that are more constructive than others.

I'm still interested in talking about how we can support each other in "outlawdom," rather than being quite so preoccupied with picking at each other.

Interestingly enough, one could argue that this could be in internalised reflection of the expectations of patriarchy. Women aren't supposed to show solidarity with each other, are supposed to compete with one another and certainly aren't encouraged to join forces, focus on common ground and do anything that could represent a real challenge to patriarchy. However, we don't have to play along with that script!

'Tilly do you think that, by definition, all feminists should agree with each other on every point ?'

No, but you should be able to have an informed and rational debate.
Rather than saying its all a pile of horseshit and the OP's partner is a sexist macho dominant who gets off on bragging about hos potential harem to his wife, that she is colluding in this attitude and that...or whatever in so many words.

SAF, Agnes and a few other FWR regulars can discuss and debate without agreeing with what is being said, and whilst pointing out the inconsistencies and overlooked possibilities, and without making the other party feel degraded and at bay.
So it is possible.

AF - no of course not. but it wasnt a debate. to me it looked like the OP being told off for critising women, by a number of other women.

not really sure what the difference was.

I think there are 2 separate issues here. one is the extremely interesting discussion to be had about women performing femininity in the workplace (or anywhere else) and the other is the problematic attitude of the op's dh in the face of that performance. the 2 issues are separate

But we don't know what the OP's DP's response is apart from that he finds it a 'difficulty' and 'He tries to manage this by showing them how to do whatever it is not doing it for them'. Neither response seems in the least problematic. Assuming that he is being totally honest about the situation and he is he isn't the thread is a waste of time.

"If you pose a question, you should be prepared to see all different POV's even if you don't agree with them."

Absolutely. But I suspect the OP felt that she was going to be shouted down rather than have her point debated. I agree that there have been some very good points made and it's a shame it got off to a tricky start.

Oh, and before I forget, I wanted to give a thumbs up to slug for the example in her post of 01-Apr-12 18:02:57. It sounds like in doing her job, she is very much being an "outlaw," and in the process, encouraging women by example to stretch their abilities and confidence to do stuff directly and for themselves. But, she's also not colluding with the entitlement of the men in her workplace. If they insist on playing the big male "I am," then they won't be able to do their work.

Personally, speaking, I'm not particularly interested in a discussion about whether or not the OP's DH is a tool, a good guy or a garden gnome. What IS interesting to me at least is a discussion on ways we can subvert the assumption that women will play femininity and men will play masculinity in the workplace and elsewhere.

Its still here despite attempts though AF.

The fact there WERE attempts does not make the OP a wuss. This section is intimidating and there are people who do that quite deliberately to intimidate.
Robust debate does not give a licence for intimidation.

Plenty of ways to debate without straying into that. I think its great that people are trying to stand up when it is happening. If it encourages more people to come here, its good.

What everyone wants is people to feel free and able to discuss feminist issues or to ask questions right? You want more people to be interested and get involved don't you?

So please don't play that card over "how awful this board is". Perhaps there are people who want to make a positive contribution to stop that happening and unless people actually stand up and say "hey too far" or simply "stop talking utter bollocks" then it won't change.

Can I just point out that some of the straight talking responses on this thread have come about because feminists consciously try NOT to do socialized feminised behaviours like the sort being cited and criticised in the OP.

We try to throw off the notion that women should always be nicey nicey and caring and concerned about everyone and everything. Some things can just be said - they shouldn't need to be dressed up in fluff for people to be able to hear them. I agree with chibi - the debate on other parts of MN is much harsher than on here.

And this thread is sort of eye opening because look what has happened.

Nyac and a couple of others came out with some straight talking feminist analysis. And they are being attacked for it. Which is sort of horribly ironic considering that the premise of the thread was to criticise women for not being straight talking. Non?

And this on a feminist discussion board and by other women. We need to be careful with this stuff. And really think about it.

Only my opinion, of course, feel free to robustly disagree with me.

"What everyone wants is people to feel free and able to discuss feminist issues or to ask questions right?"

I feel that I'm a fairly "robust" poster but I think twice about posting on Feminism at times. I'm sure there are others.

'Dust/Tilly...but debate hasn't been closed down has it ?

We are still here

OP may not be, but it was her choice to not stay and debate her POV. Nobody forces you to stay or go.'

Agreed, I've been on the fringes of FWR boards a while and find it fascinating, and it has certainly moved on my understanding from the 1970's based feminism that I arrived with.
And as KRITIQ posted
'What IS interesting to me at least is a discussion on ways we can subvert the assumption that women will play femininity and men will play masculinity in the workplace and elsewhere.'
That's a set of issues that I was interested in way back, and it is somewhat disheartening to see that it is still a key issue in so many scenarios. So.on with the questioning and the subversion please.

the woman over the road from me came across yesterday as I was helping my husband shovel a ton of gravel onto the driveway and said - oooh stop doing that my husband will think women are capable!

Silly cow.

HmmThinking, then we will differ

because you think the early posts on this thread were an attempt to shut down debate and I don't

I think they were a valid viewpoint that opened up further discussion for and against....people are free to disagree or disagree as they see fit

I also consider being accused of "playing a card" to be an example of what you say you don't want to happen on this board

KRIT - this could be in internalised reflection of the expectations of patriarchy

completely agree. i think society makes women feel not good enough (in appearance, to apply to a job, as a parent, in sex) and even in feminism. so we act a moral police, not only of ourselves, but other women, even those who are feminists.

IMO part of shifting the goal posts is to see other feminist views as 'good enough' to make progress towards equality.

The first post I got deleted was saying that joining in with your husband sexistly (if that's a word) criticising women he works with was indeed undermining to feminism.

The second one was me saying I didn't believe him as far as I know.

Neither were personal attacks, both were indeed robust, but I'm sick of seeing feminism being used as an excuse to bash women in sexist ways, particularly when it was a man instigating the bashing. As Chibi says, Mumsnet is the home of bluntness and robustness, weirdly though it's only in the feminism section that we really get hard time for using it.

It's interesting though that people are still desperate to focus on these women, through a third hand report, when we have a direct report of a man behaving in a sexist way, that deserves far more examination.

Women get stereotyped and degraded in the workplace by men. i think this is one of those instances.

i think it is also helpful to think of feminism as a political movement dedicated to the liberation of women. i try my best to never blame women personally or attack them for the compromises they feel they need to make to keep body and soul together, or those that just make life easier - i make compromises too.

however

i am not going to pretend that those choices are feminist, or not harmful if that is the case.

in any case, i am more interested in attacking a system that privileges those choices, rewards and facilitates them, rather than the women themselves- one is oppression, the other is a response to it; they are not the same

I know people want to move onto the issue of why do women perform femininity but I have something I would like to add about the tone of this thread.

There are posters here accusing other posters of trying to intimidate others on purpose.

That is a pretty serious accusation and it is a personal attack - and the accusations of bullying, having an agenda and being riddled with propaganda are akin to accusing people of being trolls. And that sort of thing is hardly going to encourage debate is it?

Personally I'm amazed that anybody is surprised that there were some straight talking responses to the OP. I often use analogies about racism to explain a point about feminism and why we sometimes react the way we do to stuff.

So imagine if this were a forum where predominately people of colour discussed racism issues. And a member posts an OP saying;

"I've been discussing stuff with my white partner (WP), my WP says that in his work he is always coming across people of colour who act in a stereotypical way, you know that sort of Uncle Tom, comical all round serviceable good guy sort of way. My WP does his best to discourage this sort of thing, but they still do it.

And what bothers me is that I feel these people are harming other black people by behaving like this, they're making it hard for black people to show that they have ambition and can get ahead too. I feel these people are doing a disservice to the rest of us and harming the civil rights movement."

mumwithdice I hope you come back to this thread. Personally I found your OP a bit naive and I think that may be why you got some sharp responses. It unfortunately came across as though you wanted us to bash these breathy women your DH has been telling you about.

If the OP had just made it a general question, we could have had the discussion about how women have to survive in the patriarchy.

Instead we had a report about all these women that her husband works with who apparently are letting the side down with their breathy voices and the fact that they can't unzip a zip drive. Why is he running home telling tales about them to his wife? Why is he being so derogatory about them? In that context, he's the problem, not the women. Someone on here even suggested they should be sacked, just based on this man's report. That is so sexist it's hard even to know where to start with it.

I think one of the things women do to comfort themselves is to imagine that it's always that other woman over there who is doing it wrong, and that they themselves would never behave like that so they're safe from this kind of criticism, when in fact sexist men will always have stereotypes to draw on (like the alleged breathy voices or the inability to use technology) and people will believe them, no questions.

Also it is not a sign of liberation or women's freedom to be able to use crappy badly designed computer technology. Like I said the ability or inability to is the measure of nothing in particular. Certainly not a measure of whether a woman is supposedly letting down the feminist movement.

Men who like to pretend that computers are the be all and end all and design them to be so complicated that only a few people will understand them are however much more of a problem.

I already linked to this upthread (thanks to JosephineB who posted it on another thread). Here it is again though because it is exactly what is going on here. I'm going to give mumwithdice the benefit of the doubt and think that she posted her OP without having considered the feminist analysis implications.

We should be able to discuss those implications though and express them without skirting round the subject IMO.

There are the insidious assumptions guiding our interactions?the supposition that I will regard being exceptionalized as a compliment ("you're not like those other women"), and the presumption that I am an ally against certain kinds of women. Surely, we're all in agreement that Britney Spears is a dirty slut who deserves nothing but a steady stream of misogynist vitriol whenever her name is mentioned, right? Always the subtle pressure to abandon my principles to trash this woman or that woman, as if I'll never twig to the reality that there's always a justification for unleashing the misogyny, for hating a woman in ways reserved only for women. I am exhorted to join in the cruel revelry, and when I refuse, suddenly the target is on my back. And so it goes.

I agree with Basil that there are two subjects here. There is the subject of women's socialized behaviour. But the elephant in the room is men's socialized behaviour and the fact that the society that socialized the women is male dominated.