Men, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

[curlew]

Fantastic article by Laurie Penny

This thread really is like a sort of debate about feminism bingo, isn't it? We can now all tick off "make statement, then claim to be too busy to provide references when challenged" We've already had "make statement then disappear" and "make statement then suggest anyone questioning it googles"

What next?

I'm sorry, I see the discussion has moved on but I've just come back to it and need to respond to GoshAnne's post.

I know that sometimes people talk about women in other countries as a silencing tactic. I can't see how on earth you got that out of this thread though -- we all said it doesn't mean not talking about sexism in the UK. In a discussion about culture and oppression I think it's pretty natural to start talking about other cultures.

I'm incredulous that you could accuse people you don't know of using women in other countries as props and not caring about them. I've spent the last eight years researching and working in the area of civilian protection, I have been to a number of conflict-ridden countries and seen firsthand how women suffer, and I can assure you that I do have 'actual concern about these women as humans'.

I am frankly gobsmacked at the amount of privilege inherent in the sentence "I really wish people would leave "women in the Middle East and some parts of Asia" out of conversations like this." I mean.... really? In a conversation about how culture oppresses women, we can't talk about how different cultures oppress women differently? Is that really such a huge distraction?

It's important if for no other reason than to argue that oppression is not simply a spectrum with the UK on one end and Afghanistan on the other. That is far, far too simplistic. For one thing it neglects the role of female agency the extent to which women can respond to and fight oppression. Yes, there is sexism structural, violent, overt -- in the UK. There are also a huge number of things that women can do about it, which hopefully over time will improve things. You cannot say the same for Afghan women. They risk being beheaded or having acid thrown in their face for daring to do things that we don't even have to fight for anymore.

It's not about making Brits feel bad or like they can't complain. To me, it's about making our arguments and language more precise, which should attract more people and generate better counter-strategies. And it's also about solidarity. I'm not saying every conversation has to include Afghanistan, but let's not stick it in a little ghetto of 'problems over there' that we cluck over sympathetically from time to time.

Apologies for ranting, this is obviously something I care deeply about, but I don't want to 'derail' the thread any further so can bow out.

Hi Buffy. There was a report just out about a survey taken in which 7 in 10 women prioritised family over work. That's certainly true of all but one in my family/extended family/friends.

'This thread really is like a sort of debate about feminism bingo, isn't it? We can now all tick off "make statement, then claim to be too busy to provide references when challenged" We've already had "make statement then disappear" and "make statement then suggest anyone questioning it googles"'

You do know that feminists do the same?

Re the article that kicked all this off - if Ms Penny had written the last paragraph;

You can choose, as a man, to help create a fairer world for women ? and for men, too. You can choose to challenge misogyny and sexual violence wherever you see them. You can choose to take risks and spend energy supporting women, promoting women, treating the women in your life as true equals. You can choose to stand up and say no and, every day, more men and boys are making that choice. The question is ? will you be one of them?

then there would be no argument. It's common sense and common decency rolled into one. But she didn't. She introduced hate into the article twice, and that was my objection. I also questioned the title of the OP, but that is another issue. We don't need division, we need co-operation.

I then asked why a culture that actively hated women would even allow them a foot in the door, re legislation, healthcare, education etc. I don't think anyone even bothered to answer this question.

Also, Buffy said that men's response to the problem of sex discrimination had been 'What problem?'. What about he womenz on here who have made exactly that point? Why do you highlight that some men question the extent of sexism, but not women? I never get that attitude. If women, who are the victims here, question it then why wouldn't men, who would be less aware of it in the first place?

In summary, I liked the last paragraph. I think the rest of it was Ms Penny trying to be Jeremy Clarkson. Perhaps journos these days think that shock tactics are the way forward.

"You do know that feminists do the same?"

They haven't as far as I can see on this thread.

Can I ask what you think a feminist is?

Women only shortlists work, they just aren't used very often.

30% women in the boardroom is a very recent initiative run voluntarily. Not sure how quickly you are expecting change to progress Sigmund. And 30% isn't equality - just thought I'd point that one out. Just in case anyone thought that men still having 70% of the power was equality.

The current Minister for women is not known for her feminist tendencies (although she has been surprisingly good on a couple of things), again is a relatively recent initiative and the cynic that I am suspects that it is a position meant to silence the masses not engage with them. Time will tell on that one.

The other question to ask with Sigmund's assertions is why aren't men wanting to prioritise children? They are their children too? Could socialisation have something to do with it? Just maybe? The off chance perhaps? As kim said several times up thread. Cultural and socialisation changes take a lot longer to overcome.

'And 30% isn't equality'

Will somebody explain to me what equality is? In this instance, equality is suggested to be 50/50 or close to that. Is it possible to split everything equally? I don't see how you can do that, so equality can never be achieved then, unless we lived in a dictatorship.

'Can I ask what you think a feminist is?'

a tad misguided. And gunning for my sons.

Well, having a target which still leaves 70% to men seems a little....odd, surely? A target should be aspirational - should be what we really really want. 30% is a start.......

"'Can I ask what you think a feminist is?'

a tad misguided. And gunning for my sons."

OK ha ha ha.

Serious answer, please?

www.shakesville.com/2009/11/meet-predators.html

this research is about 5 yrs old
it shows about 1 in 12 men has attempted or completed rape

I class myself as a feminist, and I have a son. I am not gunning for him. I hope that he will be a feminist too. I can't see why anyone would ever hope that their offspring (male or female) would be anything else.

did Buffy's question get answered yet?

"If women in the UK aren't the major victims of sexism, then who is? In the UK. Men?

If so, could you elaborate as to how they are discriminated against?"

I don't even know what "gunning for my sons" means. I presume it's some sort of joke that I, as a humourless feminist, am unable to get. I find it a somewhat distasteful, almost offensive expression- but that's my HF showing again, I suppose,

""If women in the UK aren't the major victims of sexism, then who is? In the UK. Men? "

That's certainly the MRA view- but this thread has, I think, been refreshingly free of them.

"Women don't want these jobs because of prioritizing family life, they just don't want them, accept & move on. I CBA to wax lyrical about this one today, I have 6 children in my house"

Exactly SF! I've been working for the last 20 years and the last thing I want now is one of these high powered, full-time, boardroom jobs. Couldnt think of anything worse tbh. I had my child a few years ago and I was damn glad to be out of the full time workplace and so were most of my friends. Not every woman wants the same, some of us love staying at home.

And if it was'nt for DP's earnings and his hard graft it wouldnt be possible, let me tell you. I'm grateful for it because there is no way I could ever do his job, or even want to.

Buffy, what qualifies me to judge? Well, all the stuff I have mentioned as evidence a few pages back, and that I mentioned (briefly) at 13:07. A culture that actively hates women would not, in my opinion, even allow a sniff of the following;

1. Women to benefit from any part of the education system - not one single aspect - GCSE, A level, degree etc.,
2. women to outlive men - which is a combination of lifestyle, healthcare and environment,
3. legislation for equal pay and equal employment opportunity,
4. Maternity leave, and free prescriptions when pregnant,

Now, before anyone leaps in, these are all a good thing. Not bad. Good. And my point is not that they are perfect, or all work 100 per cent, or don't fail sometimes, or are not works in progress, or have only been introduced relatively recently.

My point is that legislation is a product of the society and culture it arises from. And a culture that hates women would not allow these things to even get off the ground. Ever. So, by my logic, a culture that has such legislation, that has allowed it to occur at all cannot HATE women.

If discrimination no longer existed, we wouldn't need all women short lists and similar policies.