Feminism and victimisation

[EclecticShock]

Sometimes when I read feminist theory, it seems to indicate to me that women can do nothing about their "lot" in life. They are apparently just women after all. I don't find this particularly empowering and I don't agree that women can't change things.

Why are we discussing it if we don't intend to change it. What's your view on femininsm and inherent victimisation?

Mainly on here but several blogs. Seems to paint women as not having any power to determine their own fates.

I have never felt I have been unable to change anything. OK sometimes it may take a while. If you think you are too small to make a difference try sleeping with a mosquito!!

:) @ avenue

Not that in particular no. The boys/girls thread, the patriarchy and women being blinded to it... All the theory that basically says all men are the problem and suggest nohing useful in terms of alleviating inequality.

Which theory says all men are the problem?

I don't think most "schools" (if that's the word) of feminism suggest that women themselves have no agency at all, but they do point out the systemic barriers to women's self-determination within a patriarchal/kyriarchal social, economic and political structure. Basically, that means they've got a steeper hill to climb than men, but it doesn't mean they are inevitably stuck at the bottom.

There are plenty of feminists who are out there doing things to help other women. They are staffing helplines, women's shelters, etc. for those where life has thrown them something crappy and they need help to get back on their feet. They are building self-confidence and aspirations in young women and girls so they can be more resilient in the face of all the crap life will probably throw at them for being female. They are sharing their expertise with other women, whether as doulas in pregnancy or mentors in the workplace.

I have read a few blogs and comments here and there from feminists who do seem to be a bit on the "glass half empty" side, seem to feel there isn't much point in fighting the system - perhaps for some that's an extension of the idea that nothing significant will change for women until the whole system is dismantled.

It's important to remember anyone can set up a blog and say what they want, so what you stumble across on the webs may be representative of nothing but the folks writing the blog themselves.

The feminists I know in the real world are out doing stuff, not forgetting the cards are stacked against women, but not giving up in defeat.

Nice words Kritiq
Nothing ever happens overnight -things are (slightly) better than they were only because someone decided not to be passive (or just moan on about it) and decided to make a little dent - someone saw the dent and had a kick etc.
Forums like this help motivate.. a lot.
It doesn't always have to be a grand gesture or legislative change - one line, one day, to one person might just have an impact - to me that is very powerful.

simone de bovoir argues that nature puts a heavier burdon on women than society/patriachy does, i'm not sure if thats true but you can clearly kick back against established systems. what nature deals you is really your 'lot' not much you can do about that.

I agree with Kritiq's words, but insofar as this kind of picture of women's lot is present within some feminist outlooks, I worry, not only that it limits the available pictures of possible action and change, but also that it diminishes our picture of women. An analysis that makes "the patriarchy" too uniformly present and controlling in its account of our lives obscures (amongst other things) our own self-creation.

I remember a thread on Mumsnet from years ago talking about Sylvia Plath, her mental illness, and her relationship with her husband Ted Hughes. The view was expressed that her mental illness was entirely the product of patriarchy in general and Ted Hughes in particular. Since her creativity was so deeply fed by her illness, this had the implication that her poetry, too, was not hers -- not self-generated. It seemed like a destruction of Plath in the name of solidarity with her.

We are struggling against a society in which women are defined primarily in their relation with men. It is hard in that context to avoid the pitfall of redefining them essentially as victims, i.e. essentially, once again, in their relation with men.

We are autonomous individuals. Only a nuanced, multi-stranded analysis of the driving forces in our lives and in society can retain our agency and avoid presenting us passively, as victims.

(Last sentence of my first para is unclear: "its" refers to "analysis" not "patriarchy")

I get confused too, EclecticShock.
It seems to me as if the message is often that women will never achieve equality until the patriarchy voluntarily gives up power to us, that women are always victims, have no active, effective methods of forcing change and that to suggest otherwise is to blame the victim and not the oppressor. We just have to wait.
Which also confused me, because all the progress I feel that has been made over the last 40 years or so has been made in spite of the objections of the established order, and the propaganda that the changes would herald the End Of Times.
Been made by women forcing change against huge odds and protesting.
Yes, it might not be the message I was intended to get, but that's how I heard it.

Where did you hear it?

I done't hear that from feminists but ofteno do from anti feminists "men are just like that" "can't change yuman nature" etc

Can't find the thread.
The last incidence was on a thread that probably got moved to relationships, which I have hidden. I think it was about someone in a relationship that was beginning to be abusive, and I was taking the stance that she should explain how she felt, that what he was saying or doing was unacceptable and she should protest so that he was aware of how she felt. Yes, he was being an arse and needed to have it pointed out to him.
That was seen as victim-blaming, and the discussion developed from that point.

I just feel that if we wait for those in power and control to share nicely, we will be waiting forever. Especially if we never expect women to stand up for themselves, to take responsibility for their actions and see that some of them are facilitating that male power over them in their lives. From accepting inequality in their homes as 'Well, what can I do?' to saying the only thing we can do to prevent rape is wait for rapists to stop raping.
As I said, I could well not be hearing what the message was intended to be, but it seems a long way from the attitudes I was proud many women had in the 70s towards equality and their own voice making a difference.

I'll try and find the thread again.

'Which is where feminist activism lies: in calling out misogyny when we see/hear it'

I agree, but that it should also happen on a small scale in 1:1 interactions as well as banners and bigger protests.

No luck.
Which means that the thread may have been deleted, or that it was in Chat and has vanished. All I could find was me saying:

'I was told that my attitude was blaming the victim, that women should not be expected to challenge unacceptable behaviour in a relationship, that the onus was entirely on the man to change and that women would never obtain power and control unless the patriarcy volunteered to give it up.
I got a bit confused as to why the majority of men would choose to give up a position that gave them everything just for the general good. Especially if it wasn't demanded of them.'

which doesn't help much, I admit. On a different forum, without the rules about threads about threads, I would have posted a link to the thread I was referring to, for clarity.
I'll just have to wait for the next time I get confused and save the thread in a document instead.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'victim' as variously:

A living creature killed and offered as a sacrifice to some deity or supernatural power;

Applied to Christ as an offering for mankind;

A person who is put to death or subjected to torture by another; one who suffers severely in body or property through cruel or oppressive treatment;

One who is reduced or destined to suffer under some oppressive or destructive agency;

One who perishes or suffers in health, etc., from some enterprise or pursuit voluntarily undertaken;

In weaker sense: One who suffers some injury, hardship, or loss, is badly treated or taken advantage of, etc.

None of these, to my mind, suggests passivity or meek acceptance of their lot. An animal who is to be killed will struggle and fight; those who are oppressed will fight. Rather, the definition of victim suggests a subject who has overwhelming power stacked against them.

The tortured could bring about an end to their torture; bound, restricted and wounded as they are, however, it would stop a lot more quickly, and a lot more effectively, if their torturer realised what they were doing and stopped.

A powerful metaphor there.

But those definitions do include the word "suffer," which is defined in terms of undergoing -- of being the object of another's agency. I do think that victimhood itself (as distinct from women who happen to be victims amongst other things) carries ideas of passivity.

The exception is Christ, of course, who gets a special mention in the definitions you quote. The Christ story (and the stories of Christian martyrs who followed him) is interesting because it deliberately takes the notion of victimhood (in the context of a sacrifice) and passivity/suffering, and charges them with huge amounts of latent agency, because it is an omnipotent god that enacts his own passivity.

Women have often been dragged into this Christian ideal of nobly-chosen passivity: their spiritual excellence is more likely to be defined in terms of enduring hardship than men's, I think (say for example waiting passively while men go to war: their duty is to just remain where they are and constitute the ideal for which men are fighting). There is a lot of cultural baggage there. I'm just trying to tease out how, if at all, that context of Christian-cultural idealising of passivity influences ways of talking about women's liberation.

And, thinking about it, I suppose I conceive of feminism as something that, among other things, seeks to challenge that culturally entrenched ideal of women's passivity: activism is something good and subversive in itself, above and beyond its good as a means to an end. It is a form of consciousness-raising because we have been accustomed to feel alienated from our own agency.

May I, as probably one of MN's older posters, try and make a point in favour of optimism. I started work in 1962 in a job that was overwhelmingly male. There was no maternity pay, no maternity leave, few nurseries or playgroups, mortgages and loans all needed male guarantors, sexism was the norm, double standards were the norm and it was totally true that you had to be twice as good as your male colleagues and work twice as hard to get anywhere. Female directors were like snowballs in the Sahara, just going into a pub alone (which I did) invited all sorts of opprobrium, women were patronised through gallantry, yet bullied if they stepped out of their role. I could go on and on and on...but you get the picture.

In the last half century there has been a sea change - more change in 50 years than in 500.

Of course, we have a million miles still to go. I don't pretend any different.

But in answer to the OP all these changes have come about through and by women, through feminism, determination and a sense of justice and fair play.

Victims don't change things. If women were victims (in the sense I think the OP means it) things would never have changed. And they have. And they will.

Never, ever be a victim. Never give a damn what people think or men (and some women) say. Do what feels right for you and for your loved ones.

And never give up.

I really hate this implication that being victimised, is something you bring upon yourself by your weakness and inadequacy.

Victim is a noun. Lots of people become victims when they are victimised. It doesn't mean that they have a specific character-flaw which has made them victims, it means that they have been on the receiving end of some kind of abuse.

Being a victim is not something that you are, it means that something was done to you, for which you are not responsible.

Even the insistence on the word survivor as opposed to victim - I get it, people don't want to be defined by something bad that happened to them, but I kind of feel uneasy about the triumphalist idea that you can't "give in" to being a victim, that would imply some kind of character failing on your part, you have to be a survivor. Of course if someone objected to being called a victim I'd respect that and call them whatever they wanted, but pretending that being victimised is something active that you do, rather than something that happens to you, is v. problematic IMO.

Am just musing here.

'I really hate this implication that being victimised, is something you bring upon yourself by your weakness and inadequacy.'

I agree that no one who is victimised is responsible for their position, that is the fault and responsibility of the aggressors.
I do feel how you respond to an attack is the area where I am more uncertain,where the situation becomes more murky for me.
To tolerate low-level manipulation until it becomes part of your unquestioned normality. To return to an abuser, to watch someone abuse your children and do little or nothing to protect them. To ignore all the red flags, even when someone else points them out to you. To remain a victim.
As I said, it confuses me.