'Girl' skipper shame

[MontyGlee]

I have a variety of thoughts about this, but at the moment I'm just so bloody incensed that this story starts with calling her a girl.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/royal-navys-first-girl-skipper-3916423

Yes, Chaos said that, and she stands by that. There is no flaw in my argument, merely in your understanding of my answer.

She isn't a role model, she is a Commander in the Royal Navy, nowhere in her Commission, job description or person specification does it say that, because she has a moderate rank in the armed forces, does she have to be yours or anyone else's role model. You have decided that she is.

I think that's a crock of shit. There are male Commanders in the Royal Navy, they do not have to act as role models to anyone. Except insofar as they have a role some people aspire to. When they get accused of sleeping with junior ranks, it doesn't make the papers, with a woman, it does. Are you really expecting me to believe that you don't see the problem with this?

Anyway, I'm out. I am really tired of, anytime anyone disagrees with you, you have to turn it into some sort of personal crusade to make the person wrong I have enough people trying to make me wrong about my thoughts, thanks, I don't need a woman on a talk board I frequent for support and to learn trying to do that too.

I know a fair amount about this particular subject, but it's absolutely pointless discussing it further with you Monty because you will just post and post until, in your mind, you have proved I'm wrong.

The Petraeus scandal was gleefully reported because of who he was, and what he had done. His command style was deeply disliked by almost everyone within ISAF and in Iraq. He was particularly disparaging about the British forces. He was also a deeply unpopular head of the CIA. The scandal came out mostly because the head of the CIA generally has a good shot at becoming POTUS in the future, and a lot of people, even some people close to him, were worried about his hawk views in a country where war is becoming more and more unpopular. He is, according to several people I know, also a self righteous wanker, allegedly.

That's not what Chaos said. That's what you said and I agree with it. On this thread and on other threads there's been repeated denial of a very valid point that I've made by this one poster. I've engaged with it politely and had no actual discussion of the points I've raised in return, just a repetition of the same flawed mantra.

You may provide an eloquent and diplomatic escape route here and that's fine. But it wasn't what was said and it wasn't what happened.

As to my posts, well yes - there's some 'them and is' goes on when people rally around to support one another and use terms like 'we'. I go back to my previous comments about clubs and cliques. It's basic playground shit and I hate it. I have a history of being bullied and shouted down by pompous arses and I don't react well to it, I know. Sorry about that, but we are all a product of our experiences. I will not tolerate duplicity, bullying or hypocrites masquerading as sages.

And... Of course she's a bloody role model.

Sorry, could you explain that again Monty? I didn't really follow what you think you said and what Chaos said and which of your points isn't being answered.

Can you explain more clearly to me why you think it is useful to pick out this story and be critical of this woman? And why you think she should be especially careful not to breach social conduct rules wrt personal relationships, and why her standard of this should be higher than the other people who do this and don't get reported? And why you are choosing to focus on a single allegation for your assessment of her suitability to be role model, whether she wants to or not, rather than her long standing career to date? Because all of that looks like typical patriarchal bullshit to me.

I apologise Buffy.

I'll come back to this later when I've calmed down.

I'm sorry you have a history of being bullied and shouted down, Monty, me too. It's taught me to stand my ground, because no one will ever do that to me again. It doesn't make me wrong, or my perceptions wrong. I am not trying to make you wrong either. We have different perceptions of things. We are allowed to have those.

I suppose that the thing is, Buffy, that there is an established group on this forum and in feminism generally. There is a private language: in-jokes, abbreviations and conversations that have already been had. Several times I have seen established posters effectively rolling their eyes and saying, "are we really discussing this again?" I understand this! Absolutely there is a perfectly valid dynamic where someone relatively new to a practice should listen to those that are already immersed and seek to learn from them. However, this (feminism) is not an exact science. Often, I (and I suspect I'm not alone) look at these long established principles and find that they don't really relate to our own experiences and our own understanding. I do find that there's this attitude, though, where some of the established posters don't take the view that some of these issues are open to debate and that different opinions may be exist, but rather that they are in possession of established facts and anyone that deviates from that ultimate truth is either a fool or has an ulterior motive. This makes the issue very difficult for some entry-level newcomers to relate to. By some
I mean people who want to understand and see the reasoning of something rather than just regurgitate profundities. So, anyway, if one is outside that group, as any newcomer inevitably will be, then there will be a level to which they will justifiably react to the 'pompous arse' factor of people claiming something is X because everyone decided it was before you got here when Y seems to make more sense - or is at least true for you. A group can bully an individual, the reverse is less true. I'd have thought the power dynamic is one that would be understood here.

So, anyway, as to this debate - feminism at have decided long ago that it was unfair that women who finally graduated up the slippery pole of patriarchy should not have to suffer the burden of additional responsibility. This makes sense - from an activist point of view, it is a bad idea to place the hopes and credibility of the cause on individual shoulders. It also is incontrovertibly inequitable. However, whilst one can build an entire pov based on that principle, I don't think it reflects the reality of the situation, however unfair that might be. Cdr West is a role modelf for women. She may not want that, but it is inevitable. It is a consequence, unfair and un-asked for, that if she cocks up it has greater significance. Yes, this is in the perception of others, but des that make it less valid? Leadership overall is about how others perceive you and it's still a valid, if intangible, factor. That perception, that responsibility, that significance can not be denied, even if it is inconvenient.

I also think that we cannot deny it given that we demand these 'representatives'. We want women to breach these frontiers, we demand it. How can they not represent women when we are calling for women to be represented?

Oh and, thank you.

I think I understand where you are coming from Monty but the de facto result of your pragmatism is acceptance of the double standard.

Men fail or succeed as individuals - women cannot afford to fail because they fail for all womankind (because of their unwanted role model status) is what you appear to be saying.

As a feminist I would argue that until women can succeed or fail as individuals and not as representatives of their sex, then equality remains a mirage.

The longer women accept your pragmatic view, the further away is equality.

Early feminism succeeded by women refusing to accept perceptions whether it was e.g. of woman as a frail creature, of women as too illogical to vote, too weak to do certain jobs etc. As they refused to accept these perceptions the perceptions lost their power and were consigned to history.

Perceptions change when people refuse to be brainwashed by them, not by pragmatically accepting them as simply the way things are.

I'm not sure about feminism deciding things long ago.

When you say it is inevitable that this woman is held to higher standards what you don't seem to recognise that becomes reality by the weight of people describing her as a 'role model' and a 'disappointment'. The way you did. So you are saying, 'it's inevitable she be held to account for that' and I'm saying, you are making it inevitable by choosing to enter public discussion with the description of that woman as a disappointment and a role model.

Hands up: I am eye rolling that these are the terms we are discussing about this woman and I'm sorry if you feel like that's unfair but honestly, insisting that I in my feminism need to respond to you on a point which I think the very discussion of is anti-feminist is unfair. The only thing I have to say to your insistence that this woman must take personal responsibility for the way that others invest in what she means, is why are you looking at this one allegation - it's not even proved - and not the totality of her career. And do you really think that discussing this is in any way helpful for the advancement of women in the navy or any other male dominated organisation? Because the only outcome of such a discussion to me can be the conclusion that women in the vanguard like this have to be whiter than white: which is effectively disbarring most women from being in the vanguard.

Women shouldn't have to be better. Every single discussion of this nature simply reinforces rather than tackles that inequity.

I think your following argument is correct Grimbletart - equality won't be achieved until these elements are the same. But acknowledging a current dynamic is not the same as accepting it. Pragmatism is accepting a compromise, surely? I'm not accepting it as in I think it's alright, I'm accepting it exists! I think this is a sticking point between these two POV - it almost seems to me that there's a school of thought that says, "if we don't acknowledge this thing, it'll go away all the quicker". I don't agree; that only works if everyone felt like that and they obviously won't. Only more women in these positions will make it go away.

I'm very uncomfortable with this idea of refusing other people's perceptions. Those perceptions don't change by refusing them but by refusing to conform with them. It's actions that change perceptions, not thoughts. For example, I have no doubt that many people on this forum don't liked or think I'm a goady fucker. I can't change that perception by ignoring it or refusing it. I can refuse to let it bother me, certainly. But it's still there. I can only actually challenge those perceptions by replacing them with new ones.

Feminism's progress has been by people campaigning and by doing and by women being role models. Cdr West had Feminism's hopes on her shoulders and she let us down. I'm sorry, I know that's unfair, but that's how I see it.

And Outself, the question of whether this discussion is good or bad for Feminism is not in itself the defining factor of this scenario. RL does not happen in way that best suits feminists, obviously and whilst we may wish we could determine how everyone views stuff, we can't. There is therefore a difference between RL and feminist discussion. You make it sound as if we are the gods, sat in Olympus, deciding how best the mortals should do things.

If you think I'm denying that the perception of this woman in the terms you suggest exists, or that I think ignoring it, it will go away, you misunderstand. I think that perception exists and exists explicitly through people making statements about how this woman disappoints. I think it best tackled by offering a counter narrative.

I just don't recognise your description of my position, in any way. I'm trying really hard not to feel personally slighted by the way you ridicule what you think that position is. My position is that describing this woman as a disappointment is antifeminist; that the only response to such a description is that it is an unfair and discriminatory position that potentially disbarrs other women from accessing positions like the one she is in; and that we should be thinking about other terms to discuss her in if we do not want to give creditability and weight to that original, prejudiced and inequitable position.

I think you misunderstand my perception of how public discourse works, or what I think 'feminism' should be. Let's be clear, you are not merely 'acknowledging' an inequality here, you have actively argued for it as your basic position. You said this woman is a disappointment, and that she is a role model, and she will be held to higher standards, whether we like it or not. From where I am sitting you are literally the only person espousing this deeply unfair position. It is not reality, it is your reaction to reality. And the more you absolutely insist that it is reality that she will be seen in this way, the more you absolutely entrench that view as acceptable and as 'reality'. Others may wish to react to this woman in this way and what I'd say to them is what I'd say to you: insisting that this woman accept your terms for her advancement is unfair, it holds women back, you are reinscribing a double standard that has created the situation where she is one of only a few in her position in the first place.

What I would suggest is that we do not accept this reading of the situation as the only one and instead act to give a counter narrative of this woman and her story, or treat it like a different kind of problem than one of 'rolemodelling'.

For the record, I did not talk about this being 'good for feminism' - I queried whether you honestly thought your line of enquiry could help in any way either this woman, or other women in similar positions, or the advancement of women in male dominated organisations. I am not in service of some monolithic thing called Feminism, I am interested in how we respond to this situation that liberates them from things like the double standard that YOU INSIST I ACCEPT

I know and I'm that you're taking personal offense, but it's difficult to express an opinion that is effectively that yours is arrogance in a non-offensive manner. Especially when I'm not very good (apparently) at being diplomatic. But I do think there's something disingenuous about taking an approach that's based on 'what's the best outcome for me/women' and addressing it as a counter-narrative. The position doesn't stand on it's own merits but rather its intended outcome ie that society doesn't react in a pre-determined anti-feminist way. So, if a male role model were to mess up (Petraeus for example) we can talk in judgemental terms about what he did. However, if a female role model messes up we should create a counter-narrative and leap to her defence because she's a woman. Well, doesn't that circle back to double-standards anyway?

No, creating a counter narrative for this woman is seeking to mitigate the damage created to the advancement of all women to positions like the one this woman was in. Criticising Patreaus will in no way impede the advancement of any man to the position he was in.

Explain how that is arrogant?

Could someone else comment here please, I'm really not sure why I'm coming off as arrogant?

And what is disingenuous about thinking that I will conduct my feminism according to what I think will help or hinder the cause of women? I've been really clear about that, and it exactly explains the purpose of my feminism, as far as I'm concerned. Why is this disingenuous?

I haven't said, by the way, that this is a counter narrative. This discussion is a reason for a counter narrative, and that counter narrative could be. I'm not talking about society when I say your position is reactive. I'm talking about you. Society may be being reactive, too, but I don't see how basically accepting the reading that 'this woman is a disappointment and should be behaving as a rolemodel' is in any way helpful. Society needs arguing with. And the argument is: your position is unfair and unhelpful and shores up standards of inequity that mean women as a class and as individuals do not advance to the same range of positions as men.

I'm sorry for pissing you off; I'm not doing very well at being less combatative.

What I mean is that I think opinions range between an absolute emotional response and an intellectual reflection based on what one reasons to be the case. The latter may be quite contrary to the former... What I understand your position to be is that your response (or opinion) is neither of these two as such, but a means to an end: what opinion best serves women. That suggests that your response may be counter to fact and contrary both to most people's emotional response (nothing wrong with that) but also to most people's reasoned position. It suggests that you pick your position based on what further's your cause. That's what I mean by disingenuous. It also supposed that you have a belief that you know best for society. That's what I mean by arrogance.

I apologise again for that being a personal attack. When I say you, I also mean a lot of social commentary from people who adhere to a doctrinal concept.

PS I accept that there's an arrogance about my own position - certainly in terms of how I phrased stuff initially.

I don't say anywhere I know what's best for society.

I think the problem we might be having in recognising where I'm coming from is that I have a clear sense that we are engaging in public discourse. This discussion to my mind is part of public discourse and I don't see why having a reflective response based on that recognition is disingenuous. It's only disingenuous if I somehow really believe what you are saying (which by the way I don't) but for some reason I refuse to say so.

Your suggestion that I am forming an opinion as a means to an end is massively irritating because of the way it suggests a dishonesty that I now have to counter. I can assure you that I really believe my public position, that I really believe any discussion of this woman in the way you are saying she is a role model and a disappointment is actually very unhelpful, it is a way of reinforcing a double standard that you acknowledge is unfair. I think your assertions that I'm acting disingenuously is a way of avoiding what I am saying. I am also unaware of any central doctrinal force in feminism and it's actually really rude to people who happen to agree after a lot of thought and research to assert that they are acting to conform to doctrine and not because they are capable, rational people with something worth saying.

To be clear, this is not about 'feminism' and it's not about 'society': I am being specific when I say you personally are being unfair to this woman personally, whatsoever the stances of feminism and society. You describe as fact people's reactions to this woman and you say it is factual that they will broadly fall in line with yours: I'm saying that those responses is not immutable facts but arise specifically in the context of wider public discourses. Therefore I find it extremely important to be part of public discourse that critiques those responses, being as they are unfair and discriminatory against women.

I've stated my absolute opinion in this case: you are holding this woman to an unfair double standard, you are claiming to speak for others and society when you say that we must engage with this view of her that you offer, you are part of the problem. If it really is the case that people are unfairly holding this woman as representative and flawed, why are you joining in with that?

Thank you for your posts, Outs.