In one respect I think I must be a really bad feminist..or am I?

[grimbletart]

Just that. I need a) someone to tell me I am being utterly unreasonable or b) confess they have felt the same way on occasions.

Please excuse length, but bear with me.

I'm an old gimmer, one of the second wave feminists who fought through the 60s and 70s for equal ops, equal pay, end to sex discrimination etc…

In that respect, and others, I feel that I have earned my stripes as a fully paid up member of the awkward feminist squad . Plus, as I've said before as well as having a feminist mum and grandmother (suffragette) I have been a feminist since before I even understood the word i.e. from kindergarten.

And yet I find myself getting irritated (Jeez I have to be careful how I phrase this or I am going to get jumped on from a great height) by what I feel is an attitude (acceptance?) by some that one should never ever criticise a woman or girl for their actions because socialisation and societal attitudes mean that they are never really responsible i.e. they are acting the way they do because they are pressured or vulnerable or lack self esteem or whatever. It is never their fault.

One of things I fought for as a second waver was that equal opportunities and rights would also mean equal responsibility for one's actions, so if a woman is being a twat she is being a twat and should be called on it and not given a get out of jail free card just because she is female.

Otherwise are we not playing into the meme that females are, by definition, vulnerable weak and in need of special protection?

I've been aware of my uncomfortable feelings about this for a while now over a number of issues on and off MN. But I think it is the Maguluf thread that finally prompted me to stick my head over the parapet. Yes, the media (especially) the holiday reps, the 24 idiot men are all nasty knobs and the double standards are diabolical and utterly wrong. But the reluctance by some (most?) to attribute any personal responsibility whatsoever to the girl I found really irritating.

That was a recent example only and my views are not drawn to apply to that situation particularly so am not prompting another discussion about that: I simply found it illustrative of the notion that females are helpless, vulnerable and cannot be held accountable for their actions - it's nearly always someone's else's (or society's) fault.

This is not what I fought for, the notion that we are fragile flowers - the woman as victim idea ironically seems to be more prevalent now when liberation/equality has never been stronger - at least legally.

I'm baffled and disturbed by a) what I appear to see happening or b) that maybe that after entering my 8th decade as a feminist, I am not really a feminist, merely someone who wanted equality, and that what I saw as feminism was not feminism at all.

Or maybe it's simply that I am just a "get a grip" sort of person at heart as a result of having to spend a lifetime fighting the corner for women.

I feel like shouting "come on women you're better than that".

I actually hate myself for feeling this way, but what is going on with so many things this last decade or so, whether it's porn, pinkification, woman as victim, girl as decorative accessory to boy, is leaving me disillusioned and wondering whether all our struggles of my generation and my parents' and grandparents' generation of the 20th century were worth it.

OK, I'm Aunt Sally - shoot me down.

Sorry for the somewhat inchoate ramblings.

I see what you mean Grimble. I think we differ philosophically on this one. I think women are human beings who are flawed and make bad choices, same as men. But in my mind that is totally irrelevant to feminism. For example, with the Robin Thicke video, you might see what those women did as a poor choice. I see it as not my place to judge those women or even Robin Thicke for that matter. I just see the whole thing - song, video and reaction to same - as an example of how women are viewed in society. There is no blame, no judgement, just a strong, clear example of sexism.
What I want to see is a world where if judgement is to be meted out (though I don't agree with judging people in general) then men and women are equally judged on the same standards. As it stands that is not the case. And this is what feminism needs to tackle. I, as a woman, should be able to make mistakes and face the same criticism/judgement as a man.

caiiian: I so agree with your last paragraph. I think we do agree actually in that we both want individuals to be judged on the same standards. In my case that's why I get frustrated when I see women being let off the hook by some feminists just because they are women. I suppose many feminists would see it as fair until both sexes have an even playing field.

Me, I'm just Victoria Meldrew

I think you can disagree with someone's choices and find them idiotic/ harmful/ unwise/ selfish etc. but still prefer to analyse the overall power relations in a given situation.

The problem with focusing on the motivations of the women involved in making choices we don't agree with, is that in many cases we don't know the motivations and the discussion is nearly always male-led (in that even when women are having it, they're seeing the world through male eyes as is normal). So when we're invited to join in slagging off a woman, we're buying into that whole structural thing and imposing the male view of what a woman's motivations might be (she's a gold-digger, she's a slag, she's a fake etc.) on her. Hence the reluctance to join in - it's not necessarily that we agree with the choice, or have some kind of misplaces sex loyalty, but that by joining in the general melee, we're losing sight of the actual important issues and in doing so, supporting patriarchy in effect. If we don't stand up and say "look I'm not going along with this, I want to discuss men's behaviour in this context or power dynamics in this" then all we're doing is adding to the usual noise which isn't advancing feminism.

I think you can acknowledge that you wouldn't make that choice while making it clear that the choice itself cannot be disentangled from the way society has provided the conditions for that choice. And that while we might all agree that someone is an idiot over a pleasant cup of tea and a slice of cake, that agreement isn't feminist analysis, it's just us having a chat.

I understand you Basil and can see exactly what you mean. However, I am saying that by being reluctant to criticise a female simply because she is a female one may in fact be doing a disservice to feminism. So where you and I would differ is that if I believe a woman is doing a disservice to feminism I will call her on it as I see her as a fellow traveller to patriarchy who is reinforcing the system and should be exposed as such. (I have no specific example or instance in mind here, simply making a general point).

But I concede my views may be that of an older, somewhat more judgemental and tougher form of feminism.

(Maybe I simply believe the chat over a cup of tea is actually the more honest form of feminism)

Anyway, thanks everyone for your thoughts. I guess I am a product of my (feminist) generation.

But going back to Robin Thicke, Miley Cyrus got far more stick for her part for the VMA performance (young woman dresses scantily and wiggles her arse! Hold the front page!) than he did, at least to begin with. Yes, there wasn't a witch-hunt against the (probably not highly-paid, relying on good word-of-mouth for their next jobs in a short-lived career that's almost completely dependent on the patriarchy for its existence) models in the video. And yes, they had agency to decide whether or not to participate in the video -- but that was an end of it. There were a number of other people who had actual creative input into the video, including the female director (Diane Martel) and they'd be higher up my list.

I don't think it's exactly a reluctance to criticise based on gender so much as a reluctance to criticise based on power, and under a patriarchal system women tend to be in lower-status roles with less power. So criticise Diane Martel all you want, but the people who conceived, created and profited from the video would come higher up a blame list for me than the relatively low-status interchangeable models.

Compassionate critique - I like that.

I 100% agree with you, OP. I was going to start a thread in feminism/ womens rights earlier, asking a list of questions regarding finding the balance between standing up for women's rights, and over-apologising for individual's behaviours purely based on the fact that they are female (not at all exclusive to Magaluf girl). I was too scared to- there are a lot of people with strong beliefs with regards to feminism and I was worried that I would be shot down for asking genuine questions.

Another thing I was wondering- I read a lot about how girls are expected to be princessy and how it is a way to suppress girls and put them in their place, but then I also read the argument about why should what is deemed as boy's clothes (i.e trousers and jumpers) be deemed as the default, as if it is better? It is really confusing- I would really appreciate it if someone could point me in the direction of some good feminist literature for people who are sort of beginners iyswim, and for someone who wants proper equality rather than positive discrimination in favour of women?

Sorry for slight derail there.

"if I believe a woman is doing a disservice to feminism I will call her on it as I see her as a fellow traveller to patriarchy who is reinforcing the system and should be exposed as such"

You see I agree with you in principle there but i also agree with Buffy's "compassionate criticism". So absolutely calling out the behaviour that is damaging to women, but also attempting to understand the context and background to that woman's actions and beliefs. Of course, there will always be cases where the context and background is that the woman is an obnoxious arse, that's definitely not restricted to men!

Hmmm if one person bears no responsibility for an action because societal influences and conditioning sees them enduring the role of a victim then surely it would also follow that a perpetrator of abuse who was subject to the same societal programming has the same defence?

We all start out innocent and blameless go through the same crucible of experience that society gives us. Only because the message is slanted to each gender we regrettably come out the other end with different expectations and attitudes. Which of course creates a cycle, we allow the status quo to continue because we were raised to it, and it is ONLY through taking personal responsibility that little incremental changes can happen to the formula.

Of course the more people who take responsibility (either men or women) the faster that change can take place. I think to the OP that sometimes feminism is a balm to the ritual character evisceration that happens these days whenever situations arise where a woman has acted in a way that a lot of people would question (or even I fear increasingly these days just by virtue of being a woman).

One of the areas of privilege I enjoy as a bloke is that the bar for my own screw ups is set much lower. Wether it's a poor moral judgement, incompetence or just a simple honest mistake society at large is much quicker to forgive and forget than if I were female. I can forgive anyone for not wishing to add to the cacophany of condemnation.

I have no idea how one goes from that to encourage responsibility but I suspect that Buffy has the right of it with the word compassion featuring prominently.

Oh am really glad you posted Dervel, because I am reading this thread and wondering the same thing.

How is it that women are not to be blamed for their behaviour because they are victims of societal pressure or conditioning, but men, who are also victims of societal pressure and conditioning SHOULD be blamed/take responsibility for their behaviour. Surely if we expect men to change and to take responsibility, not behaving in a sexist way, not being the abuser, or just a simpler expectation that they treat women as their equals, then we should expect women to take responsibility too, and when they behave like a prat, then call them on it.

Dervel & steppemum exactly what I was thinking - both behaviours are a result of weakness and bowing to the pressure of societal norms. Both are wrong.

It all comes down to the question: is that women acting like that because she is a complete arse or because she has been groomed by the big P?

There's so much crap out there pushing girls in quite frankly ridiculous directions. Boys too. But i think the difference is that society forgives boys easily with its boys will be boys/can't blame a bloke for trying attitude and feminists try to make up for that imbalance.

"How is it that women are not to be blamed for their behaviour because they are victims of societal pressure or conditioning, but men, who are also victims of societal pressure and conditioning SHOULD be blamed/take responsibility for their behaviour"

I don't think it's about not blaming women for their behaviour. It's about not adding to the already loud noise about how shit women are - there's enough of that, anyone female whose behaviour who needs to be condemned, is going to be anyway and she doesn't need our little voices added, the condemnation is already a roar. From the POV of feminist analysis, our little voices are better used focusing on trying to understand the power dynamics going on.

Where men's behaviour needs to be condemned there is usually silence or excuses, in stark contrast to the roar on the other side. Except from feminists. So it's important to add our voices to that tiny little noise.

I don't think there's a conflict between recognising that someone's individual behaviour is shit and recognising the underlying structural conditions in which that behaviour is occurring. I don't believe it's a useful exercise to join in with those who would rather focus on the individual bad choices of either men or women, rather than examining the structure which upholds those choices.

Whenever it comes to bad behaviour by women, we are subtly (or not so subtly) encouraged to see how that behaviour proves women are shit after all; whereas when it comes to men, we are very firmly directed to see their bad behaviour as a one-off aberration, not a result of structural factors. Hence rapists and domestic abusers being seen as "othered" monsters, not normal men. I see the rush to condemn individual women's behaviour as the other side of the coin of seeing individual men's behaviour as one-off, one bad apple type stuff - it's not getting to the root of the problem and on one level, yes it's fine to recognise people's behaviour as just shit, but if it's political analysis you're interested in, how far will that take you?

It feels as if the societal norms have shifted to such an extent that certain 'extreme' behaviours become almost 'accepted' at a cultural level amongst some groups until the Daily Wail or others fetch up and start pointing fingers at the women (and always the women) involved. Although the Magaluf experience was extreme, I'll bet this wasn't the first time it's happened - I bet those reps have set that challenge before - she just got caught on camera.
I also am old but still work with adolescents. It feels as if they are situated in the midst of this massive 'sexual' battle where girls are continually positioned to behave in a more and more sexually extreme way while being judged by an increasingly hostile male gaze.

What an interesting thread. It reminds me of Margaret Attwood's The Handmaid's Tale - isn't the main protagnist's mother a "traditional, 60s/70s" styled feminist who calls her daughter out on various issues, but, essentially, for not really thinking about feminism politically at all? I think, especially as I get older, I am beginning to feel the frustration you outline, OP.

I'm uncomfortable when I read about rape which occurs when both parties are drunk and can't really recall what happened. I am compassionate to women who are socialised to believe that they must go along with sex, it's expected, when in that situation (even though they aren't really consenting) but doesn't it then follow that I should be compassionate to men who are socialised to believe that they ought to be "up for it" and seeking sex in these social situations (even if they are too drunk to think things through rationally)?

Part of it is getting older and realising that lots of behaviour by both men and women is disagreeable compared to what was acceptable "in my day" eg drunkeness in the street, sexual activity in public etc. But I agree with Basil that, in such scenarios, society always seems to judge women more harshly so I do try to analyse my own thoughts on this and err on the side of "compassionate critique."

I cross posted with everyone there . I do very much agree with your alst sentence, sardine

I do see what you mean, but I think coming from a background where you were brought up with the concept of feminism, and from, presumably, a fairly middle class background. Therefore I believe you are well informed enough to make responsible decisions and are far less vulnerable.

I will probably get flamed for this, but in my experience, attitudes toward women are appalling in many working class homes (I should know I came from one) and also in fact in many mc conservative ones. Women are conditioned from a young age that they are inferior to men.

Many ideas/beliefs I had when I was younger, and many things I did, were influenced by growing up in an essentially misogynist household.

It is only since I have grown up and discovered feminism that I have been able to reflect on this.

For example, I have probably made myself sexually available to men I didn't really want to because of a subconscious aim to please them, for instance with exes that provided for me financially.

So what I am clumsily trying to say, is that some girls grow up thinking the only way they can succeed in life is through a man, and thus girls actions were an extension of that, give some guys a Bj, get a free holiday.

I think women are held accountable much more for their behaviour by society than men full stop. Women are hardly ever absolved for their behaviour. It is rarely minimised or ignored. The Magaluf incident you cite, being the perfect example of ignoring male behaviour and focusing on female behaviour.

So as a feminist I don't really want to add to that cacophony. And on the point about why men should be held (perhaps more) accountable for their behaviour even though they are under the influence of societal pressure, I think that the big difference is that men are the oppressor class. A lot of women's behaviour which may be damaging to women as a class are in response to being oppressed. Men's behaviour is a result of being the more privileged class. So why shouldn't they be judged more harshly (bearing in mind this judging only seems to be by feminists - society most certainly doesn't)?

I'd like to remove the whole judging malarkey entirely, it serves no purpose. As far as I see it, both men and women are equally products of patriarchy and pointing the finger achieves nothing. The men I have talked to who have become open to feminism over time (and it's always taken time) have been truly blind to their privilege (the blindness being a result of their privilege of course) and judging them for actions/opinions that they took/held in good faith, based on their upbringing, was absolutely not helpful. All it did was pit me against them in a "who's more downtrodden" game. When I said that, actually, both you and I were brought up in this society and here's how society views you and here's how society views me, then the lightbulb went on. Then they were able to acknowledge, yes, I made that decision because I (unconsciously) felt more important in that scenario.
Judges and courtrooms hold people accountable. Feminists, IMO, shed a light. So with the Robin Thicke example, RT may be a festering cockwomble, but that's not a feminist issue. What is a feminist issue is that this festering cockwomble made a "catchy" song about rape and no one really noticed the rapey bit while they were humming along. So it's our job as feminists to shed a light on that, point it out, and hope, in the long run, women especially but also men see the effect these seemingly insignificant things have on the actual day to day lives of women.

I'd like to remove the whole judging malarkey entirely, it serves no purpose
While I partially agree, I'm never certain how you instil a sense of self worth and core values without a little bit of 'judgement'. As a parent and a teacher, my experience is that those children without a sense of "what would * person think about me if I did this?" are the ones who can be 'amoral' and entitled - 'I can do it if I want to'. We all need to self check at times and without reference points how do we do that?
I agree that the hostile patriarchal judgements in the press are oppressive of so many young women and generally absolve or ignore those behind individual actions (generally men) but 40 years of experience working with children and families suggests to me that there may also be a style of parenting that contributes to a lack of moral reference points. I'm talking about what I would call a 'value free' style of parenting (which cute across class, race, gender etc) where the child becomes the 'perfect' child and focus of all attention and the parent sees their role as going into battle with anyone who criticises their child. Parents step out of the parenting role and become uncritical friends offering unconditional acceptance of whatever the child does. This allows I would suggest, both girls and boys to develop without that internal sense of 'should I be doing this?', the looking over their shoulder at the invisible parent. I really believe that this stye of parenting enables some of the more extreme behaviours that we are seeing. I see too many children who seem to lack that sense of 'OMG, what would Mum say if she knew I was doing......?'
Hope I haven't derailed the discussion and I'm not suggesting that Magaluf was the result of poor parenting, just wondering whether this may be a factor that explains why so many young people could participate in such a dreadful incident, despite the alcohol involved, without anyone going 'hold on a minute".

I literally don't know of any parents who raise their children in a value-free environment. I cannot even imagine such people existing, I think they are an invention of the Daily Fail tbh.

Everyone has values, even if they are shit ones.

Even parents who bring their kids up to be spectacularly selfish and horrible to other kids, tend to be egotistical enough to want their kids to defer to them. Parents who aren't afraid of their children challenging them, also tend to be the ones who instil in their children a sense of obligation to be kind to other people.

So I think I'm agreeing with you grimbletart that there does need to be some personal accountability. I believe we need to look at how we parent in the face of an increasingly hostile patriarchal media which (IMHO) is successfully creating a climate where women continue to be seen as sexualised objects and where the boundaries of public morality are being created and policed by the media rather than by families and communities.
Hmmmm..... difficult isn't it?