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.

S/he is - I just couldn't think of another famous schoolboy!

Just William ?

they do change their voices - they effect a mockney accent and say mate a lot.

others on here said they'd never see a woman go breathy voiced and girly to ask for technical help, you've never seen a man go mockney matey with a mechanic

My brother left Scotland over 20yrs ago so has mainly lost his accent, however, he uses a Jockney accent when he is giving someone a bollocking.

I hear the phrase 'mate' all the time. Sometimes it's said because you don't know the other person's name (or forgotten), sometimes it's an affectation (my grandad used to call me 'pal' sometimes), and sometimes it's deliberately trying to ingratiate/ kiss up to someone. I don't experience a change of accent or pitch of voice though. Again, not saying it doesn't happen.

The breathy-voiced woman reminds me of one of Arabella Weir's characters on the Fast Show. She used to do exactly what the OP is referring to, so I assume it's a fairly well-known phenomenon.

"If only the OP though had framed these as her observations, or those of a female friend, colleague or relative, I think things would have gone in a very different, more constructive direction."

But that's very sad, that someone ought to pretend to be or quote a woman in order to get constructive debate, isn't it? Why is that?

It isn't about pretending to be a woman or quoting a woman.

WW can you really not see that there is a difference between a woman saying 'why do we, women as a group, do this stuff?' and someone saying 'why do those women do that stuff and spoil it for women, like me (if you are a woman) or like you (if you are a man)'?

The second is doing exactly what feminists get accused of doing all the time - judging and policing other women's behaviour.

When in fact if you look, most of us have said that we don't want to get drawn into a discussion about 'women as their own worst enemy'. We don't want to do that because we don't see the role of feminist analysis as being about criticising women - particularly not on the basis of something a man has said.

There is nothing sad about it - it is the nature of the politics of oppression. You see exactly the same thing in discussions about racism, homophobia, etc. For example when I talk about homophobia with gay people, I'm mindful of my straight privilege and I'm not about to say that gay people don't do themselves any favours by behaving in x, y and z manner that strikes me as a stereotype (that has been constructed by those who discriminate against homosexuals). It is called empathy - trying to listen to the people who are members of the oppressed group, rather than having a go at them.

If a woman had come on here and said in a non-judgemental way - 'why do we women do that femininity bullshit at work sometimes?', the reaction would have been entirely different. Of course it would.

men don't raise their vocal pitch to cranky level because it would not increase their status or the likelihood of co-operation from other men. but it's well known that depending on the situation, men will change the pitch of their voices to suit the occasion, as will women. what you change to, is governed by social norms

raising the pitch of a voice is a sign of physical stress & possibly someone telling a lie. i notice this in interviews (including men).

Why?

I think she's lovely. Or am I not allowed to say that now?

And, I'm not playing the 'good feminist'. I am being me. That's it.

What's that got to do with what I did and your opinion of it?

Sakura is great. She has nothing to do with this thread though.

Also I meant you were bringing up Sakura as the "good" feminist to use to compare unfavourably with what I did. It's a way of creating splits between women.

I think you were rude. I said so. The thread moved on; as threads do. I was following the thread; not you.

I didn't say you were following me, but you decided to comment on my behaviour. And holding one feminist up as better in some way than another is divisive.

You could always talk about the sexism of the OP's husband, telling his wife all about his female colleagues "breathy" voices and how they know nothing about IT. Because it sounds like standard sexism to me.

I have said what I felt was relevant. How you choose to respond is up to you.

beachcomber it is not "us women as a group doing this stuff", but "some women are doing this stuff". Big difference.

I think it's not wrong asking why some women are doing it, there were some interesting thoughts on this thread, but you don't have to be a woman, nor do you have to identify with women who behave that way.

Nyac, I thought you were aggressive and said so, and the posts that were deleted apparently broke MN talk guidelines.
It has been a request in the past that specific incidents be pointed out and names given, to avoid the feeling that all posters on the FWR board are being unfairly singled out. So that is what has happened.

'And holding one feminist up as better in some way than another is divisive.'
It is, isn't it? But I think it isn't about the individual but the ability to debate with others. Some people can hold a reciprocal conversation without unintentional or intentiona intimidation and some find it a challenge.

It would probably be a lot less frustrating for you if those of us that didn't understand or agree with certain arguments just went away really.
The purity of the philosophy could be preserved from contamination or befuddlement.

I've said what I felt is relevant too SGM. That action in particular was divisive. How you choose to respond to that of course is up to you as well.

DustintheWind, you've got a new name, do we know you from before under another name.

The posts I posted didn't break the guidelines. One was about the OP's behaviour (undermining feminism) and the other was saying that I didn't believe her husband. I'm not sure how they broke them, given that they were in the same vein as a whole lot of my posts that haven't stayed up.

I think it's a shame that you're more interested in policing what I've said, rather than noticing that the original post was sexist and based on sexist assumptions.

is there something specific you don't understand/disagree with dust? as in a feminist argument/idea on this thread?

don't think anyone needs to go away but best to discuss specific points than get into generalising 'this is the problem with feminism/fwr/you lot' type stuff.

Yes, like you I've had a few namechanges.

I didn't think the OP was sexist.
If he'd said the women in his workplace were thick and relied on feminine wiles to cover their inadequacies, then I'd have seen that as sexist.
But he was bewildered as to why competent intelligent women were not presenting themselves as capable, or asking for help in a normal fashion.