Feminist Pub VII - Chat, questions, random thoughts too small for a thread ...

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

Just setting this up while we finish off the last few posts on the old thread. Come in and pull up a bar stool!

Hello Buffy, nice to see you back. Congrats on the thesis! I'm due to start mine in September, it's funded and in career terms way, way overdue...

Bobby Hopper should check out The Reincarnation of Saint Orlan if he wants to see someone truly committed to protesting standards of beauty.

Bleugh, that sex-1st-date thread. Righteousness is winning out, though, the mother who teaches her sons that women don't like sex seems to have gone silent after someone (brilliantly) outlined the ways her teaching was communicating problematic ideas about consent. And the OP's going to have sex if she wants to!

Egotistical research methods? Tell us more!

Quality rant upthread, queenmab.

What do people think about the "women and children" thing? (I vaguely recall we've talked about this...) You know, "women and children first", "protecting women and children". Are we so helpless?

Children first, yes.
The infirm and in need of help first, yes (this might include some men, some women and some older or disabled people)

Women on the whole first, no.

IMO.

What's the context of women and children first that you're asking about?

I remember reading that the Titanic casualty rate was an aberration because normally when a ship sank, the survivors would be nearly all men (and that's not just because most people on the ship were men -it was disproportionate to their numbers). They were bigger, stronger and faster and they'd get to the lifeboats first. So mostly women and children were more likely to drown while the men were more likely to survive.

That's why the rule was introduced - in order to give women and children the same chance of survival as the men. But it was not usually enforced. The reason it was enforced on the Titanic was because the crew had guns and were committed to the concept.

I suppose the life-threatening disaster that most of us are most likely to encounter in our lifetime would be a car accident. In that situation, it's men first because most of the safety tests have been done assuming the average weight and height of an average man. Which means that women and children are far more likely to die in the event of that sort of life-threatening disaster.

This goes back to public space again doesn't it? I suppose if the space has been vaguely built for you, then you have more chance of survival if that space is hit by some catastrophe. Although I don't know, in the event of earthquake or fire or whatever, presumably the fact that the space was built with you in mind makes not the slightest bit of difference whatsoever.

I was thinking along the lines of the Titanic - not sure that scenario is likely to happen to me or mine

I work in a field that used to be very heavily male-dominated and is now at the verge of tipping the other way. And still, there is a lot of 'lets not burden the fragile flower of a ladee too much with the less savoury aspects' and thereby prevent career progression going on which makes me very angry tbh.

I suppose wrt to car accidents and car safety testing I was actually under the impression that men, women AND children dummies were used in testing? I may be v naive likely

I imagine, Kim and LordCopper, that what happens in moves bears only a passing resemblance to how real people would react in a life-threatening situation!

I would agree that "women and children" first is outdated and pointless - children and more vulnerable/weak people first, yes. But as has been said, that could be either gender. I'm fairly strong (for a feeble woman) and have had various types of training in my life that would make me quick to react and quite handy in a disaster. I'm also the sort of person who would want to try to help rather than be shipped off to safety in an emergency. So I'd be bloody annoyed to have my skills dismissed because I'm a woman who needs to be "saved" so that the men can get on with dealing with the crisis.

Now for my feminist whine of the day - women and bloody dieting/body image. At the gym on Tuesday, before class a women was telling everyone how she really needed to do a serious workout today because she had eaten a whole 2 tiny bags of mini cheddars. And then on the school run this morning, two mums were talking behind me and one was saying that she really needs to diet and exercise, but she's going to diet first because she doesn't want to exercise when she's so flabby. I turned around expecting to see an overweight woman. She wasn't even slightly fat.

Now I'm all for a healthy lifestyle. I'm overweight at the moment but I'm not beating myself up about it. I'd like to be smaller but only for the sake of my health, and because it would make my hobby (karate) easier. I do a lot of exercise to keep fit, not lose weight, and that's the important thing for me. It makes me so sad that women feel so guilty about being overweight, and guilty for eating, and scared to exercise (even when not overweight) because they might get judged for their "flab".

Anyone who said that to me, Kim, would be quite sorry, I think!

Annie, I so hear you - I am cross with myself for not exercising, not because of my weight (I am overweight) but because I'd like to be back to previous strength and fitness (and have a teeny bit of core strength again). I just cannot be arsed just now

It's the guilt when eating something that we feel we 'shouldn't' have had, that then leads to further self-loathing and erosion of self-worth and more comfort eating less self-esteem.
Gah.

Don't get me started on gorgeous teenaged girls and their perceived 'fatness'

“women and children first” is an invented rule to compensate for the likelihood and ability of men to take everything they want and leave women and children with nothing.

Outside disaster situations – if you look at it in social situations – women and children are socialised to be seen and not heard, so some half-way decent men thought they should offer the seats and cakes to women and children as they are socially barred from asking for them or just helping themselves to them. It’s a sticking plaster solution that allows the men to think they are heroes. In terms of going through doors, it also allows them to look at your arse or even manhandle the small of your back a bit (AAAAAAAAARGH I hate that so much).

Actually I think women and children should go first socially because resources are still tipped towards men and if you have limited seats, sandwiches or cakes, and you don’t introduce a checking device to men’s entitlement, then women aren’t going to sit down ever or get a cake.

In many cultures, men eat first and women and children last, sometimes getting very little food and no protein. I see “women and children first” as a semi-enlightened temporary corrective to this sort of tendency.

Still on the food thing: I was one of those gorgeous teenagers who thought I was fat, and that is sad, but what is really sad is how it bled into everything. I didn’t think “oh well I am a terrible lardarse but I will enter the writing competition anyway as at least I can do that” I thought “how can I enter any competitions when I am just a fat girl whom people will laugh at?”

Hhhmmm, there was an interesting discussion about 'women and children' a while back. My gut was what others have said here. But the point was made that 'children and infirm' first isn't the best idea in situations like, say, Syria, because you need someone to look after these people once they are out. And guess who the carers are? Particularly in strongly gender regimented societies, even the women without children will expect to be in a caring capacity.

There was also the issue that, if you said 'children plus a carer' there was a good chance that strong men would pressurise vulnerable women and the children would become 'currency'.

Food for thought, I thought.

On the diet stuff, I agree. I rarely think about that sort of stuff (despite having some mid-level food issues as a teen). At the moment it is heavily on my mind though as I am 15 kg over my normal weight post-pregnancy. In this sunny weather I was mighty pissed off that none of my shorts/dresses fitted! But the whole issue has become so weighted that I don't feel like I can talk about wanting to lose post-baby weight for my health and wellbeing without feeling like I am letting the side down.

On exercise, I have bought a pedometer. Ok, it is a minor start, but trying to get to 10,000 steps as many days as possible is quite motivating. I do 3,000-5,000 each 'average' day where I do no exercise. Having the pedometer prompts me to do things like walk to the shops, not jump in the car. Or walk the school run (2.5 miles round trip) when I might not have bothered. It's not hard core cardio, but I reckon it will improve my fitness given time.

Queenmab, that sounds mightily familiar. But then, we grew up being told that our worth as people was bound up with our physical size. Fat = worthless, so why bother? And in my case, fat + clever + ginger + glasses meant I presented quite enough of a target anyway. I wouldn't have entered any writing competitions because it would have been yet another way to draw negative attention.

I'm overweight atm and just don't want to buy new clothes so have to lose weight to get into the old ones.

It's mainly for health nowadays but I'd be lying if i said I wasn't influenced by the social pressure to meet patriarchal beauty standards. I know that I get more co-operation and respect from men at work if I'm slim than if I'm not. It's ridiculous and outrageous and it shouldn't be a thing, but it is. I already feel that middle aged women are totally dismissed by the men in charge anyway, but if you're a middle aged woman who doesn't fit their ideas of being vaguely worthy of being on earth, then when there's a re-structure, the men in charge will be more likely to not want you in their office.

I really feel that pressure.

I remember the thread on chat or AIBU a few years ago about it and someone made the good point that while everyone was arguing that in fact they were the better swimmer so their dh should go first but after, say, a middle aged woman because she was likely to be struggling due to her HRT medicine...that the boat would sink and we'd all die.

I tend to agree.

I do think men would muscle to the front so having a "rule" helps to make things fair. I also think th vast majority of carers of children are mothers...so they should go first. They are also more likely to be pregnant and not as able to stay swimming for hours.

Also while I think we all agree that women have been socialized to be weaker than men (more nurture than nature), it doesn't change the fact that as a whole women are more likely to be weaker than men.

So when choosing quickly who to shove on a life boat you send women and children first.

The world always gets all hung up about tiny bits of sexism that might positively affect a woman...while ignoring the 1001 ways we get fucked over. We are always mean to give up these things before give up the things that are hurting us and benefiting men.

"tiny bits of sexism that might positively affect a woman...while ignoring the 1001 ways we get fucked over. We are always meant to give up these things before give up the things that are hurting us and benefiting men."

Yup

("t" added)

" if you're a middle aged woman who doesn't fit their ideas of being vaguely worthy of being on earth, then when there's a re-structure, the men in charge will be more likely to not want you in their office.

I really feel that pressure."

Me too.

I'm very overweight, and I generally exercise in public rather than hidden away in a gym. I'm conscious of passers-by staring at me; not infrequently, someone will point and laugh, or shout abuse.

The existence of fat women offends the sensibilities of a significant number of people. To see a fat woman exercising is pure comedy: I wobble, I sweat, I gasp for breath. Exercise is not meant for the likes of me; I sense that people find it immodest. What I should really do is stay indoors and put myself on a crash diet before imposing my flabby body on the public.

Bummer, innit?

"t" added

I had to go over that a dozen times to see where I left out the T. Was driving me mad!

Sorry, x posted

Also the whole women & children first thing has happened about twice in history. Ever. But yes that must be addressed first. Men see sexism when it disadvantages them. Not so much the other way.

Well done Buffy!