Onside or Not

[baddancingdad]

I started a thread yesterday where I sought to establish the opinions of those here with regard to what I saw as a contradiction between my understanding of human rights and the main stream treatment of gender-related issues. I have had some helpful insights and a fair bit of criticism; I think I phrased my question in a way that some people objected to and I will now seek to remove the thread; thank you to all who responded.

In the thread I was asked by TheDoctrineOfSnatch whether I was feeling more onside and I'd like to answer that question.

In short, no. If anything it is being suggested to me that I am even more ?offside? than I suspected I was. My view, as expressed in the thread, is roughly as follows:

Every human being should be treated equally regardless of race, gender, sexuality or any other circumstance beyond their control. Every human being should be treated as an individual on the basis of their actions and decisions they make.

I thought that my view would be roughly in line with feminism. I thought that the comments and attitudes of many people ? including those in the public eye (an example was provided) disregarded this principle in respect, roughly, of white middle class heterosexuals and wondered, therefore, if feminists rejected these comments and attitudes. I have been informed that I am, however, wrong. Feminism 101 (as it appears to be called) seems roughly to be thus:

Power in the world is governed by a system established by men and this system is known as the patriarchy. The patriarchy ensures powers remains with men and provides them with an easier route through life. This is privilege and it leads to a sense of entitlement. The patriarchy takes strength from gender roles, which seek to place men in positions of power and strength and women in servitude; these roles are reinforced through the use of images throughout the media and in everyday language.

Because of the patriarchy, there are behaviours and attitudes that appear contradictory to me, with my view of human rights, but which are, in fact, not. These have either been explained to me or are demonstrated by the reactions of those posting in the threads.

• a man?s opinions ? and his judgement of an individual?s decisions and actions - are often flawed due to his privileged position. This precludes men, to some extent, from discussion regarding human dynamics as they will naturally be prone to enforce their privilege. If I question feminism, therefore, I am seeking to continue the oppression of women.
• If something personal and negative is said, it is relevant who is addressing whom. If I am negative towards a woman, it is a sign of my privilege and belief that I am entitled to remind her of her place below me in the patriarchal hierarchy. If a woman says the exact same thing, it is seen as being rude by the man because he is unsettled to this challenge to his status. It is also only a drop in the ocean when compared to the millennia of abuse women have received.
• Male-only or male-dominated environments need to be challenged because they are elitist and perpetuate men?s sense of entitlement. Women-only or dominated spaces are a fundamental requirement because they allow women space to operate and think without the oppressive nature of men.

This is my attempt to understand the principles of the 101 and, whilst I think they are relatively well-meant, may in fact be yet more oppressive thought or ?mansplaining?.

BDD

Well, yes, of course their is experience is different, that's what I'm querying and wondering what the different experiences are that have caused them to be unable to appreciate the bias of priviledge. I don't think it's a case of being right or wrong, it's just that they had an inability to appreciate/ recognize/ debate those concepts at all.

Casey I don't understand your pov here; the patriarchy is evident (yep, I'm ok with that bit) but the evidence that it seems to be having little effect on the progress of girls through the education system is irrelevant?

In addition to the examples of performance at school and university entrance, bastions of male power roles such as Doctor and Lawyer are now largely even at entrance level (if not at the top yet, but the generation will filter through).

This is suggesting to me that the barriers are not terribly strong in terms of opportunity and that it all starts to go wrong when the issue of child care becomes relevant to a career.

"If a straight man calls a gay man a fa**ot, he is not just expressing his own anger at the gay man: he knows that that insult is effective because he has the weight of society behind him."

Super wise Marmite super wise!

Baddancingdad. I think we are talking at cross-purposes. I am saying that yes, girls are doing well at school, but that's no evidence that patriarchy doesn't affect girls at a young age. I think if you look at what kids say to each other in the playground, it cannot help but affect girls, and of course the many boys who don't fit the patriarchal ideal.

In my own experience of education through DS, I would say that one of the reasons behind boys relative lack of success at education is actually down to misogyny in a perverted way. Girls have done so well at education that it has come to be seen as a "girl" thing, which makes it anathema to boys who wish to distance themselves from all things girly. DS for example is regularly called "gay" or a "geek" because he shows enthusiasm in certain classes. In this instance boy culture is shooting itself in the foot.

However at the end of the day, boys will be ok because education is more needed for girls than for boys; there is a wealth of non-academic occupations that boys can advance in which aren't in reality welcoming to girls. Even female graduates who work their socks off will find themselves at a disadvantage when it comes to childcare, as you pointed out. A man can still expect an unbroken career whilst a woman cannot. At least not until an equal division of labour at home is something that young women can come to expect as normal rather than a stroke of luck.

Ok Casey - the flaws in trying to communicate complex ideas on an internet forum! For instance, I'm sure you're not saying that it's ok if boys don't become doctors or lawyers because they can be mechanics or soldiers... (even though that's how it reads!!) ;)

I'm not saying the patriarchy has no effect, I'm suggesting that it's presented as this huge problem, whilst the evidence is that for women of

Quite right, I didn't mean that! I hope each boy becomes whatever he wants (with the exception of a mini-Hitler!).

Re. the "patriarchy has no effect" I'm a bit lost. You seem to be saying that only women of child-bearing age are affected by wage differences and therefore that is not a patriarchal issue. I would disagree with that because not only is the assumption that women will perform childcare a patriarchal one (inculcated in girls at a very young age - take a trip to a toy shop) but the fact that it affects women's ability to make a living so drastically is down to a mixture of capitalism and patriarchy and a real issue for feminism.

To say that women under 25 don't feel held back isn't to say that they're not, just that they may not see it. I didn't really see it in my 20s because I was so busy adapting to a man's world. I wanted to be one of the guys and the last thing one wants to appear in such a situation is a feminist. It makes you terribly unpopular! So I tried desperately not to be one.

Of course that's not to say all young women are held back, but it would depend on one's own experience. For example a woman who has not been raped or sexually harassed may look upon the efforts of feminists to highlight the low conviction rates with detachment, but if it then does happen to her, it will have a new relevance for her. A woman who actively enjoys beautifying herself may not feel affected by the media focus on women's looks whilst a woman who doesn't will no doubt feel constrained by it.

I think that gender roles and expectations affect us from the moment we are born. They shape our interests and our future jobs, tell us what behaviour is acceptable and what is not, as well as the kind of behaviour we can expect from others according to their gender. And while girls are doing well at education they are not doing as well in the subjects that lead to the better paid jobs. I think there was a thread recently about their poor uptake in physics and IT, a lot of which is down to social factors, IMO.

'the evidence is that for women of

I mentioned the age because I'm guessing (?) that the wage disparities tend to arise as a result of the differences between typical maternity and paternity career breaks and the shorter hours that women will typically do if they have greater childcare commitments than their partners. I know that there are other factors - employers may (unfairly) be more likely to invest in men's professional development, for example - but I was just thinking along the lines of opportunities being roughly comparable through school and university and into the first jobs. It's after that that it starts to get imbalanced; as you state (and I can understand) there will be all sorts of factors that will lead the mother to take the role of primary carer rather than the father.

Further to this point, someone mentioned the typical age gaps between partners such that men were likely to have progressed further in their careers and be more natural choices (in terms of household economics). It has been interesting to note from a few conversations that there are many women who go to work while their husband stays at home / takes primary responsibility.

I wouldn't want you to think that I'm disputing the concept of patriarchy, I'm not. I think an awareness of it is very helpful for everyone - but I'm doubting the power that it retains and its relevance to the next generation. Some of the posts I've read suggest that we're no better now than we were a generation ago and that the situation is as stark now as apartheid was in SA thirty years ago.

Sorry, that was a bit of a ramble...

What's confusing here LRD? I'm trying to clarify something; if women are oppressed by the system and yet girls are surpassing boys in educational achievement, going to university in greater numbers and establishment (and traditionally male) professions such as doctor and lawyer are evenly balanced between the genders at the newly qualifying level (which I'm supposing is at 25 years of age) then that attempt at oppression is not working very well is it?

Oh, I'm not confused at all - just looking forward to seeing your evidence.

You are incorrect, btw - women are not surpassing men at university (the target age group you mention). Whoops!

"yet girls are surpassing boys in educational achievement, going to university in greater numbers and establishment (and traditionally male) professions such as doctor and lawyer are evenly balanced between the genders at the newly qualifying level (which I'm supposing is at 25 years of age)"

which, if that is the case, this is down to the successes of feminism.

However, it is the after that is problematic. Take your part: "the typical age gaps between partners such that men were likely to have progressed further in their careers and be more natural choices" is problematic because you state natural choices for something that is is cultural.

Ask yourself why is it the norm for women to marry older men? Why is the older man/younger woman scenario far more common on tv than the other way round? Why are older women who date younger men called cougars and looked upon with distaste?

And take the scenario you've painted of the typical couple in which the man earns more? Ask yourself: why do we gravitate towards that? It may seem entirely natural but it is often the case that women are made to feel guilty if they out-earn their husbands and so the returning to the conventional scenario can feel like a relief. I don't expect you to know this because how could you? I don't expect you've ever been told by your mother "Be careful dear, you don't want to appear cleverer than your boyfriend. It will emasculate him."

My point is that you are expecting patriarchy to be blatant, in-your-face discrimination. Sometimes it can be, but mostly it isn't. Mostly it's an intangible, drip-drip of messages that get into our psyche and convince us we're making the choices ourselves, but the truth is we're all effected, whether we know it or not.

Did I say women were surpassing men at university? I don't think I did LRD.

Of what I've said, which bit are you challenging as being untrue;

Girls now outperform boys at school
More women go to university than men
There are as many (if not more) women becoming doctors than men
There are as many (if not more) women becoming lawyer than men.

We can talk about the issue I'm trying to clarify or we can dance around it, but if it's the latter I think I'll politely decline next time.

No evidence?

Oh, well, I suppose it did sound unlikely.

Women under 25 are not girls at school, bad. Though they may be women at university.

I think that may be why you got a bit tangled up.

Casey

"which, if that is the case, this is down to the successes of feminism". I agree, absolutely.

By natural choice I simply meant that the one earning the most money stands out as the one to continue in work. I didn't mean that it was natural for a woman to choose an older man. However, if the man is older and all other things are equal (unlikely, I know) then those extra years 'served' will mean a more advanced position career wise.

Lol at Mother :)

Yes, happy with your final point.

LRD, I don't know what the communication issue is between us, but we are clearly having different conversations.

No, I don't think so? I understand fine.

I'd love to see the evidence you mentioned, that's all.

I'm so sorry if it's too complicated a question. It wasn't intended to be metaphysical or anything like that. I'd be absolutely fine with just a few citations and an indication of how many studies there have been, what the parameters were, that sort of thing.

Thanks so much!

The Glass Ceiling always seemed a poor analogy to me. I've always thought we all start on a ladder; some people start on higher rungs than others and we all have pieces of elastic running from our feet to the ground. Some people have longer and more stretchy elastic than others... the patriarchy is one of the strands on some people's elastic I guess!

Oh, I like that, very poetic and fanciful!

Sorry, I'm probably distracting you with asking for evidence.

I always thought of 'glass ceiling' as less analogy, more (unmixed) metaphor. Probably way too basic though!

LRD, I applaud your self belief.

Moving on...

if you could perhaps tell me which of the four sentences you would like to see evidence of I will go and google something for you. I am, however, suspecting that you are trying to wind me up.

Excuse me?!

I am really offended you would say that.

I have been nothing but courteous to you. Accusing me of winding you up is extremely rude, and also in contravention of MN's guidelines, which are very strict about trollhunting. I am not trolling and not trying to wind you up, as a careful reading of my posts will show.

I simply asked you (very politely) for the evidence you said you had. I don't want to google it (and I can do that myself).

If you claim to have evidence, it's in no way a 'wind up' for someone to express interest in that evidence.

I await a thorough apology.

This is all getting a bit Kafka for me...

Thank you for your conversation Casey.

It is so difficult to post when even the politest replies are twisted and mocked.

I find the sarcasm the hardest thing to deal with.