Is it possible that we are second best?

[Pinkypoops]

Is it conceivable that the reason women are STILL struggling for equal recognition for their achievements, equal pay, equal respect etc etc is that we are just not as good at a lot of things as men are??
This is a pretty horrifying thought that´s been niggling at the back of my mind for a little while and I REALLY want you lot to convince me otherwise!!

Here´s the deal: I´ve ALWAYS had feminist leanings, stood up for myself, been OUTRAGED whenever anyone has suggested I am in any way inferior or less able to do something based on gender. I was the lone voice at my rather conservative university questioning the status quo, whilst my very intelligent female colleagues (academically, at any rate) would prepare sandwiches for their boyfriends on a Saturday night so they´d have something to stave off the munchies when they staggered back from their drunken boys´nights out. eyeroll
BUT........lately I´m thinking that equality isn´t that straight forward and most of the time it seems we females are out to self-sabotage! Look at all these ridiculous sex-kitten role models that so many girls aspire to be like- one after the other of these female pop stars sells out her integrity and talent to become over-sexed and under-dressed. "Rah rah...girl-power"...my ass! (or rather, HER barely-covered ass!) Their one and only aim seems to be to lay it all out there for men to "come and get it". (Oh gawd...I sound like some prudish Mother Grundy...haha...but SERIOUSLY...can somebody please shut Rihanna and her gurlfriends up??!!)
Yes women are safer drivers as in they have fewer accidents, but my God, I´ve seen some cringey moments with women who just cannot for the love of all things holy park their OWN cars.
And in the work place....we definitely lack the confidence that men have. (I include myself here) I´m in the medical field and I have to be honest....sometimes feminine self-doubt is not at all helpful when it comes to the big decisions. Men are still the top surgeons and it isn´t lack of opportunity as I see it....it´s because they believe in themselves and are prepared to take chances.
And yes, you might say it´s down to conditioning, blah blah...but I think it´s fundamentally testosterone that gives them the edge in so many ways. No matter how much we like to think otherwise, we are sabotaged by our hormones! They make us focus on having babies, being submissive, under-confident and lacking in ambition in our otherwise most productive years.
I´m all ears to hear as many opinions as possible on this!

Annie that's exactly what I'm saying, the women I work with dont put in the same hours as the men, and the ones I'm talking about dont have children and are mostly single. I totally understand when a woman has kids things change, I have one myself, I probably don't put in the same hours as I did before but I still do as much if not more than my equivalent male counterparts.

Maybe it's just my company but this is what I see.

Right, time for a joke. Parable of the Willies, as it were.

God was making people and had a couple of pieces left over in the box, so called the man and woman over.

Right, said God, right here I have the ability to wee standing up.

Adam pushed to the front. Me, me, me, I'll have that, he said.

Eve waited a minute. What's the other piece? she asked.

God grinned. Multiple orgasms, she replied.

Yes, exactly. Who are these women having affairs with? Er, men? Or is it only lesbian affairs that are seen to be unprofessional? It's the old "if a woman has an affair she's a whore, if a man has an affair he's a lad about town" dichotomy innit. Women are allowed to be sex objects (ie judged in accordance with their attractiveness rather than their efficiency) but not to be sex subjects (ie willing participants). Weird stuff, and says a lot more about office politics than it does about women in the workplace.

Perhaps I'm just not nosy enough, but I have no clue whether professional colleagues have or are sleeping together and don't give a flying fig whether or not they are. I only care whether they are doing the job they're paid for.

This seems a very odd thread. Unless the OP is brand new to MN, or in fact to internet message boards completely, she surely would have realised that an opening post filled with quite wild generalisations would be experienced as pretty provocative by other members here. The wild generalisations have continued, even though many folks have provided evidence and patient explanations about why such generalisations are rarely helpful, the dangers of "self-fulfilling prophecies," etc. But, I'm not convinced that the OP really is inclined to engage with these. There's always a "Yes, but . . . " response, followed by more generalisations.

I was trying to imagine what it would be like if the thread made the same sort of generalisations about people of different ethnic backgrounds, or class backgrounds, or people with disabilities. Whether the op was from a minority ethnic group, or a less privileged socio-economic class or had a disability herself wouldn't really make a difference, just as the OP being a woman doesn't give one carte blanche to make pronouncements about all women.

There's also this phenomenon sometimes referred to as "internal oppression." That's where because you hear constant messages saying you are inferior, you believe these to be true at some level, and often "act the part," you're told you are supposed to play.

No but it's 70% of the women and only 7% of the men so what does that say.

Its nothing to do with nosy, when it's in my face both on a working day and on nights out.

Anyways I'm just putting my point of view across this is what happens in my company it may not happen everywhere but I can only talk about my experiences.

It says the men are shagging 10 women each. Maffs, innit.

First the car-parking thing: firstly, how often have you noticed men having to try 3 times to park their car? Probably never, because we don't notice when men are incompetent about it, whereas as soon as a woman fulfills stereotypes, we seize on it. As a side issue, so what if women were not in fact, good at parking cars? Why would that be an indicator of inferiority? Why isn't an inability to turn on the dishwasher or washing machine an indicator of inferiority?

Sexy stuff - look at how rewarded women are for jumping through patriarchal beauty indicators. If people are rewarded for behaving in a certain way, they will behave in a certain way. It is rare for a woman to be rewarded, for looking like herself and being herself. If it weren't rare, more women would do that. I think you need to look at structures there, rather than blame the women who operate within the structures.

Viz testosterone, why aren't you saying that testosterone makes men more likely to murder, be violent and take risks than women, therefore we ought to place some reasonable restrictions on their behaviour? If we lived in the oppressive matriarchal society which were a mirror image of the oppressive patriarchal society we actually live in, then that is how the question of hormones would be phrased, rather than seeing testosterone as a positive thing.

Secondly with regard to hormones, even if it were true that our oestrogen controlled us into needing to make babies, why would that be framed as a negative? Creating the next generation would be considered a worthwhile and valuable thing to do, if we didn't live in a society steeped in misogyny.

In conclusion, I'm getting the feeling that as we all do (for a while) you've imbibed the misogynist framing of our society and want some reassurance that we are not actually, as shit as our society tells us. I think the only way you can rid yourself of that self-doubt (which was put there by a society which told you and me right from day 1 that we're not as good as our brothers) is by reading. A few basic fem texts might be helpful, because it will help you see the patters of how society is structured to ensure tht women fail. Knowing how this is done, helps you rid yourself of the feeling that we just aren't good enough.

Will now read the rest of the thread.

"one thing that seriously gets my goat is placing under-qualified people in positions because of their demographic (grrrr)"

Where does this happen?

IME, the only time this happens is when men get jobs because of their demographic and everyone calls it a meritocracy, not noticing that the man in question is surrounded by women of a lower level who are infinitely more qualified than him.

"Men are often more outspoken and stronger in meetings and debates- ipso facto, better at getting their point across and getting heard."

When women are as outspoken and as strong in meetings as men are, they are seen as aggressive, scary bitches. When women talk 30% of the time, they are perceived to have dominated the meeting.

Men being better at stuff - you need to remember that men have deliberately excluded women from all the stuff you mention - you go into a gym, and all the equipment there is made for an average male - women are smaller and lighter and are on average going to find that some of the equipment doesn't meet their needs. Because they're expected to slot into a world designed for men, rather than one designed for both men and women. All the other stuff you mention, women have been excluded from until recently and their efforts are recieved far more critically than those of men - when men screw up, it's their screw up and a chance to learn from it, when women screw up, it's received as further proof that all women are shit.

Back to the next bit of thread.

No but it's 70% of the women and only 7% of the men so what does that say

Frankly, the square root of sweet fanny adams. I think the fact that there are 100 men and only 10 women for them to have affairs with should give you a clue.....

On another tack..

This thing about women not being fitted to do certain things e.g. rule the universe, because they are emotional due to their hormones and nature.

Testosterone is a hormone - anger is an emotion and we know what that can do - or do emotions and hormones only count negatively when they are female?

It's telling that you focus on the bad message that Rihanna sends out, while completely ignoring the bad message Chris Brown sends out. He's the perpetrator remember? He's the one we should be focusing on. Patriarchy ensures that women turn their ire on her instead of him.

What's wrong with crying at work? Why is that worse than swearing at work, or shouting at work, something lots of men I have worked with have done, but it never gets the criticism crying at work does. Because men tend to do the shouting or swearing and men are better than women, obv., so behaviour associated with them - anger, grandstanding, bullying, is OK, while crying - nasty icky female stuff - is shit, because women are shit.

I totally disagree that there is less bitching and irrational behaviour when working with men. For the first time in years I'm in a male dominated team and the muddled thinking, irrational decisions, grand-standing, bitching and sheer fear is extraordinary to behold after years of being in a co-operative, constructive environment. It's very entertaining, but there's no way it's as efficient as the female-dominated environments I've worked in for the previous five years. They're higher paid though. Because they're better than women, obv, because women are shit.

Excellent post Festivia.

I've often wondered what is wrong with showing people you are upset as well. Do you think it might make them uncomfortable to know that they have upset you? Well quite frankly it should. Or do you think it is a sign of weakness? Well it isn't. And in fact to even put it on the same level as aggression, sexual harrassment and violence that I have seen from men in my workplace is really really insulting and mimising. I had one guy at the Xmas party try and justify why another member of staff had held a woman in my office up against the wall by her throat, because she was annoying and would try the patience of a saint. There is still that underlying belief that women's behaviour deserves violence. That man didn't get sacked btw, he was moved to another office. I wonder why women aren't more confident in the workplace. Remind me again why that would be?

YY to last three posts of FestiviaBlueberry :)

I am not recognising in my largely evenly balanced male/female workplace (with more men in senior positions) the crying, affairs, shouting, swearing, bitching, irrational thinking or sexual harassment that is being described.

And I have worked in 4 different organisations.

Anniegetyourgun - I agree with you. I guess the challenge is to be able to judge individuals on their merits and not rely on stereotypes, even while admitting that there may be some gender related tendencies at a population level.

I guess technology may help - things like the move from women getting cheaper insurance as a group to "black box" insurance that monitors how well people drive. Could be applied in other areas of life. Similarly with work if we can get better at measuring results rather than assuming that performance on the basis of appearance/presenteeism.

In reply to those criticising my "ill-thought-out" argument...this is NOT a pre-planned posting in any way...hence I haven´t sat and planned what amazing argument I should type to back up my perceived mysogyny! This is me trying to make sense of perceptions I come across on a daily basis that perhaps have had an effect on the way I see things. I am not some politician or professional feminist debator! (or anti-feminist as some of you see it!)
Just an ordinary woman who likes to look at ALL sides of an argument with a very open mind. I do not in fact BELIEVE that women ARE second best. What I do see however, is that we are often not as good at certain things as men are and it adds fuel to the argument that we are the "weaker sex". Yes, thanks for pointing out, many of you....we are in a man´s world and therefore judged by masculine criteria. (That´s been a very helpful point, thanks)
And ´scuse me for randomly picking out examples as they came off the top of my head....parking/computer skills/etc are just the trees in the wood. I´m looking at the bigger picture.
And what is wrong with criticising women? When did we all become untouchable?? I AM actually one too, you realise, so feel I should be able to look at my own kind critically and honestly.
The whole point of this is that I do love women and love being one. I just feel genuinely frustrated that, within our ranks are those who self-sabotage and set us all back! And being blindly, militantly feminist without being able to stop and consider another person´s honest observations is almost as bad as being a simpering little sex kitten, if I may be so bold.(eek) Neither extreme is helpful, I don´t think.

I hope you're right, Himalaya. That would make sense. However, the effect of measuring results in education, as Lessthanaballpark pointed out earlier, is instant panic because it appears more girls than boys are good at it. It's believed there must be something wrong with the education, or the measure, or something. Not acceptance that girls may just be better at this education lark (at least at this stage of their lives). They can't just suck it up, they have to pick at it and find some way of making it not true. At least with the removal of cheaper insurance for female drivers, which I agree was unfair based as it was on averages rather than individuals, they've stopped the difference mattering.

Pinkypoops I think you're missing the point.

It's not a brave, open-minded observation to say women might just be shit. It's the default position of a misogynist society. Lots of people deep down inside, without realising it, think that women are just shit really and that's why they don't get anywhere. Most don't realise that, it's only when the chips are down that it gets expressed and they don't even realise they're expressing that idea.

Refuting that proposition, isn't "being blindly, militantly feminist", it's just applying critical feminist analysis to an age old misogynist "common sense fact". Critical feminist analysis is the opposite of blind. It's blind to not be able to critique the stereotypical observations you see all around you on a daily basis. But when feminists do critique them, we're called blindly militant. The breath-takingly thorough research and analysis and lifting of the veil that feminist scholarship did - and is doing - on so many of the topics that you've raised, is actually incredible and amazing and if men had done it, would be considered one of the cultural triumphs of the twentieth century. Instead, it's called "blind". Sad.

FestiviaB I´m loving your posts and despite criticising me, you have managed to shout me down without causing offence, so thanks. I do think that you are slightly missing MY point too, though! Ostensibly yes, I have posted some pretty harsh things which clearly offend those of you on here who have probably read a lot and know one heck of a lot more about feminist theory and history than most. And THAT is my point!
It´s time to preach (nicely please) to the UNconverted!
I want people like you to tell me these things- the way you see it or know it to be. Rather than attacking me for being such an ignorant product of a male-dominated society, continue to convince me otherwise...please! :-)
I assure you that articulate, highly educated and well-read women such as you who have read so extensively about feminism are VERY SADLY in the minority! Most people-male and female- just tootle along in their day to day lives without giving any of this much thought as long as it doesn´t seem to affect them. I readily admit to being guilty of not reading enough and not being conscious of all that goes on around me- something I hope very soon to remedy. Again...THAT is my whole point. Am I still being unclear??

So right Annie: that's why I made the point about girls having to achieve higher marks in the old 11+ exam than boys to prevent them outnumbering boys at grammar school. It was patently and obviously unfair to deny entrance to girls because they achieved more but no one gave a flying raspberry at the time because it was only girls being disadvantaged Now there is more coursework and girls are still achieving better marks there is this idea/myth that they are doing better because education has become 'feminised' - whatever that means and lots of hands held up in horror because it is perceived that boys are disadvantaged.

I don't want either sex to be disadvantaged. I don't want positive discrimination (even though males enjoyed positive discrimination in education, jobs, politics etc. right up to recent times). I just want individuals to be judged on their merit - not by their sex.

Festivia, your last post sums things up brilliantly.

Pinkypops, I know you say you want to learn, want to be convinced. However, I'm honestly not getting the sense that you genuinely want to engage with those who are giving up their time, thoughts and energy to patiently explain alternative perspectives.

Discussions like this crop up frequently here, and in feminist discussion boards all over the web. Sometimes, they are started by people who honestly want to learn, who are willing to listen, who do their own research without expecting people to hand them all the answers on a plate. Much of the time, however, it's not like that. Sometimes they are wind ups. Sometimes, they are started by folks "looking for an excuse to get off the bus," (i.e. saying provocative things in hopes of getting flamed so they can say they were "driven away" from feminism.) I'm not saying that you are either of the last two, but I'm not yet getting the message that you're clearly the first, either. Really, it's up to you though to get that message across.

It's not always possible to be "nice" about systemic oppression, whether that's racism, sexism, homophobia, class prejudice or disability discrimination. It doesn't mean one has to be rude and personalise everything, but it does mean that often you have to say things that WILL make others squirm. If everything is presented in sugar coating, there's a huge risk the whole point will get lost in a bland message of, "well, we should all just be nice to one another and it will be okay." You need the grain of sand to make a pearl. You have to prune a tree to make it grow. If a person isn't receptive to some discomfort, to having their preconceived ideas challenged a bit, to considering alternative perspectives, then they're hardly likely to change their views, no matter how gently you try to persuade them.

The recurring mention of computer games in this particular thread has made me wonder what would happen if someone was to write a simulation with two separate worlds - one 'male' the other 'female' but capable of parthenogenesis. Of course defining m/f 'characteristics' without being merely stereotypical would be difficult but I wouldn't bet that Planet Testostero would be a happier place than Planet Oestro.

Thanks, Kritiq...but who says I´m not taking everything on board and listening? I´m here to listen to ideas and be pointed in the right direction...sure, I could go to Google or Amazon and type in "popular feminist books" but I´d rather have people chat to me about certain points of view 1st and get some recommendations rather than just blindly picking the current bestseller at Feminists R us!
Also, I think it´s crazy how easily people at Mumsnet (and I am new here, so naive I now most certainly realise :-/ ) get riled up and have a go at a poster, often getting very personal. (not here, but others I´ve seen and been frankly shocked by) This shouldn´t be about ME personally. I haven´t come on here as a troll to argue some bigotted agenda and stir things up. It´s about ideas and theories. I am genuinely interested in what people think and how they respond to these issues and questions, so don´t attack my motives. If you don´t like the thread just ignore it!
As for "an excuse to get off the bus"...haha...I am looking for encouragement to get ON the bus, actually, but it helps when the conductor greets you with a friendly and welcoming hello...rather than a "Well your views are all totally misguided, your arguments flawed and you are clearly ignorant, so you´re not allowed on the backseat with the cool chicks" Sorry, now I´m being facetious too, but come on...I can do without the grain of sand...I am well acquainted with discomfort in everyday life...comes with the territory as a female, doesn´t it?

People were chatting to you at the beginning of the thread Pinky, but you didn't engage with them, choosing instead to cite more examples of how you thought women were just inadequate.

Nobody has got personal on here, Pinky. They have told you that you are wrong. They have asked uncomfortable questions. But no-one has been personal.

Oh dear, Grimma...so wishing I had never mentioned the damned computer games! But I like your idea! Willing to bet both planets would be pretty miserable and useless really! The truth is that we probably compliment and need each other so much more than we like to admit. Would LOVE to look into a parallel universe of sorts and see how a female-dominated world would be though. I´m inclined to think it would be rather nicer...but that´s probably a sexist view too, right there! Yikes this is a minefield...little did I know it would be so...um...mine-y, this whole debate :-/