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

The patriarchy doesn't have to hobble every woman equally to be a huge problem. Is the patriarchy more of a problem for a woman in Saudi arabia than for me? Yes.

Is the patriarchy less of a problem for young university educated women than for a pregnant woman in a low paid job? Yes.

So, why is that? Is it because young university educated women are the least differentiated group of women from their male peers? That seems possible. So how can any conclusion be drawn from that one group about the scale of the patriarchy problem?

And does it mean the patriarchy has no effect on this group? Nope. In my first job, during a pub outing, mild sexual anecdotes were being told by my male colleagues. I was asked a question and I gave an honest answer.I was mocked in a way that was massively shocking to me as I'd been lucky enough not to come up against slut-shaming before. Did it change how relaxed I felt in the office, despite my equal pay? You bet your shiny boots it did.

LRD I appreciate your politeness

Hi TDOS,

I'm largely in agreement with all that. Most of all, I agree that one cannot make any sense of how much of an affect patriarchy had - if you remove patriarchy, young university educated women have less problems than pregnant women in a low paid jobs...

Equally, any clique can make any individual feel unwelcome (with jokes, rituals, passive or covert aggression) and exclude them. You don't have to be different to be bullied! I've experienced, but can't blame the patriarchy for it.

All I was trying to establish was whether in today's society it can be demonstrated to be having a noticeably detrimental affect on women's careers. I think I'm with Casey that feminism has achieved a great deal.

Ok BDD, I have read your post and reread my post and I don't think we are in agreement.

Good night.

Hi bdd, just checking back in to see if you have any thoughts on my post yesterday. If not, no worries.

Thanks doctrine, really appreciate that!

I see your point about needing unequal actions to deal with unequal situations - but then you need to judge equal. If two entities are different, then what is equal? The difference question is on another thread and I've been looking through that...

Groups for those operating in an environment where they are a minority - yep, see that. (How would people react if I wanted to start a men's department for the discussion of feminism I wonder?)

An example of same words, different mouth? I was referring to the original piece by the Telegraph journalist where what she said was called 'just a joke', 'tongue in cheek' and 'ironic' by posters on here. Given the ultra (genuine?) sensitivity of some, I can't believe that they would be so tolerant of those same words from a male journalist referring to women.

So... still working on it!

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 agree wholeheartedly.

And I don't agree with the sentiment that some feminists have, that men need to be treated badly so they know what it feels like (you know who you are)

If we want equality, we need to raise the bar and make it unacceptable for ANY sexist comments to be made.
Not drop it so men are also subject to them just like women are
The latter is a shitty way to achieve equality.

I wonder if (flawed though it may be) this is why many of the responses to the netmums survey and rosabud's fellow seminar attendees found that talk of patriarchy held little relevance to their own experiences...

Can I point out that I did not say that the people at the seminar I attended found talk of patriarchy held little relevnce for them. Nor did I say that talk of discrimination against minority groups held little relevance for them. My point was that they could not recognize the bias of priviledge in a debate about discrimination in general. For example, all the things which most posters on this thread have already articulated far better than I could, such as the efffect of language discrimination against minority groups, were not acknowledged as having any significance by the younger people at the seminar which I found surprising amongst a group of highly-educated, intelligent people.

GhostShip, which Feminists are they?

Because I sure as hell don't know any.

If you say that some people are victims, but they refuse to accept that they are, then they must be failing to understand something.

If someone says they are a victim, when you are quite clear that they cannot possibly be, then they must be failing to understand something...

frothy

I'm not going to name people as that would be unfair.

Well, to me it sounds like you're drawing a straw feminist argument.

I've yet to meet a feminist who meets the description you just drew up,

baddancingdad "If you say that some people are victims, but they refuse to accept that they are, then they must be failing to understand something."

IMO, it's not a matter of feminists claiming that women are downtrodden victims of the patriarchy. No. It's more subtle than that. It's about women (and men) making seemingly individual choices within a cultural framework that constrains those choices. And constrains them according to gender, amongst other things.

The reason we don't notice our own oppression it is because it's become so normalised. Take TV for example. If we were detached from our culture we might look at TV and be surprised at the gender imbalance on discussion/comedy/judging panels. We might question why the recent events of sexual abuse and child abduction seem to be perpetrated by members of one gender onto members of the other. We might question why most of the skin on tv is that of female flesh. But we don't, because this imbalance is so normalised it doesn't even register with us.

There is also an element of not wanting to notice, of wanting to feel in control of our own lives. I think a lot of victim-blaming comes from that desire to say "well it wouldn't happen to me". When the blinkers come off, it's not a happy feeling, it's depressing.

So, feminism isn't about saying women are victims, it's about analysing the underlying culture that limits women's freedom. And men's too to a certain extent.

"And I don't agree with the sentiment that some feminists have, that men need to be treated badly so they know what it feels like"

Just to back Frothy up, I've never met any feminist like that either. I have met feminists who are bemused by the irony of men complaining about reverse sexism NOW after millennia of the shoe being on the other foot and when we still have some very real problems ourselves.

But I wouldn't say that it is any feminist's aim to discriminate against men. That's simply a straw-man drawn up by our detractors, IMO.

frothy
So because it doesn't suit you it musnt be true? The examples are on this very forum. Ill quote some later on if you like.

Oh go on... Quote some then. This should be fun...

I'm trying to find the topic now.

And do stop patronising me, I'm not patronising you am I.

It might have to wait until I finish work.

No, but you're playing the straw feminist card. Which, y'know... Some of us are a bit sick of?

I'm not playing any card.

I'm telling you my experience of feminists on this forum.

But obviously I must be lying because you don't agree with me

Trying to find the topic in which people argued with me because I didn't agree with being sexist against men. In which I was told basically we should fight fire with fire and the old 'taste of their own medicine' line.

It may have been deleted, but people saw it. And one person who has posted in this topic was involved in it. Back to work now.

A point I have seen made - which may or not be the one you are referring to* - is that harsh words can be judged in the context of the people using or subjected to them; a man may have the weight of historical oppression behind what he says.

I understand this perspective - and the point has been made well by (I think) MMMarmite or ConsiderCasey somewhere.

That said, clearly this cannot be used as an excuse for plain old bad manners or bullying.

*and if it is, the thread was deleted at my request as I thought it took a fractious turn that my question initial question may have been responsible for

"(How would people react if I wanted to start a men's department for the discussion of feminism I wonder?)"

There are already feminist groups for men; here's a list to start with, there are probably more. www.feminist.com/resources/links/links_men.html

"An example of same words, different mouth? I was referring to the original piece by the Telegraph journalist where what she said was called 'just a joke', 'tongue in cheek' and 'ironic' by posters on here. Given the ultra (genuine?) sensitivity of some, I can't believe that they would be so tolerant of those same words from a male journalist referring to women."

I can't find that thread anymore, can't remember what the exact joke was. On jokes in general, context matters. If you're a little clumsy and I mock you for it, it's probably funny. If you lost your job because of your clumsiness, or you got badly bullied at school because of it, then the same joke isn't funny, it's cruel. A woman is more likely than a man to have suffered due to sexism, so a sexist joke about a woman probably hurts her more than a sexist joke about a man hurts him.

cross-post