Any good examples to help point out sexism to my DH?

[BertieBotts]

As he announced this evening that I am "just looking for sexism everywhere" (Nope, not looking, it just is there) and he was upset that I saw the world as such a black dark evil place (I don't).

I'm not particularly interested in explanations of privilege like the video game difficulty setting thing, just examples that he will "get". I used the example that a man might be upset if a man he knows wants to date his sister whereas a woman would never be upset at a woman wanting to date her brother, unless she thought the woman was a total psychopath. Well, that didn't work because he has 3 sisters, all an entire generation older than him so of course they have been overprotective and ridiculous over every GF he has ever had So I called "Friends" and he started making up arguments.

He gets the "big stuff", but he doesn't see the smaller, everyday type of feminism, and that's what I'd like to open his eyes to if possible. I know that a lot of it is just that it's invisible to him because it happens so often to women that we don't mention it and men, especially if they don't do it, don't realise that it's happening at all.

'but it's not a cliquey social dynamic, it's tribal.'

Yeah, it's not some silly woman thing, it's a primal urge for blokes to gang together.

And no pecking orders in mens groups at all.. oh, you know except for the military, and street gangs, star sportsplayers and their hangers on etc.

Bollocks is right.

Totally different.

It seems to me that men don't go through life judging each other, and they're not bitchy or catty

It's actually amazing to me that anyone could say this. Observing the world, observing politics, sport, the workplace, wherever, and say this. It's not called "bitchiness" or "cattiness" - those are words only used about women. But the behaviour is the same. Our violent, tribal, hate-filled world is run by men - I think the evidence of men behaving in aggressively competitive, combative and eventually damaging and cruel ways to each other and to the rest of the world is pretty universal. Or must there be a bitchy woman behind the whole thing?

No. I didn't say men's behaviour isn't destructive, just not specifically destructive to the individual. Yes they tend to be tribal, cause conflict, fight and kill each other, and I don't condone those things. I was drawing a comparison between an men who tend towards reflecting anxiety, doubt, conflict, anger etc. towards the outside world, and not towards themselves, and one that reflects those inwards towards self doubt, judgement and criticism.

We cannot change the way men are, as a gender. Nor can we blame them for all the evil in the world. And we cannot change the way we are, as a gender. The best we can do is try to understand and influence those around us, as OP is striving to do.

Hahahahaha. Like we've got enough allies/material to build a fucking fiefdom.

It was a metaphor. You weren't meant to take in literally.

Yeah, it's not some silly woman thing

Why so defensive?

And no pecking orders in mens groups at all.. oh, you know except for the military, and street gangs, star sportsplayers and their hangers on etc.

Yes, but there is a fundamental difference between an adhoc social group, and a working environment. Hierarchies exist in all working environments and they form a function. They create structure and they focus the efforts of a collective under some form of leadership.

In a social gathering men tend not to compare themselves to other.

Totally different.

It is. They are. But if you are not going to look at other groups, societies, structures, whatever, and you are not going to ask the question, "Why?" What else do you have other than to complain. Complaining never solved anything. People asking questions and finding answers that are not the ones trotted out by the majority of also-rans, tend to move societies forward.

"You weren't meant to take in literally."

Ooo! Aren't you patronising?

OP, you could point your DH towards instances of people making sweeping gender-based generalisations. I'm sure you can find some around somewhere.

So how many women would be happy with an emasculated man? I'd be livid if DH thought he was going to a SaHD. I don't see that as me being oppressed into being the little wifey he wants. Is this one of those things you either get, or you don't?

I run my own business, and is meet loads of people who's only view of the world is that they need to find a job. Like the penny will never drop that they are capable themselves of providing for themselves without needing to ask an employer for a job. I can just tell talking to them that working for ABC Company or shuffling paper for their local District Council is the sum total of their entire understanding of how to earn a living.

So I'm wondering is this is something I just don't get? Something I'm waiting for a penny drop moment to happen and then I'll see the picture you see? Because from reading the thread, you seem to live in a very insidious and dark world, and I only see social dynamics, politicking, and the usual gender stereotyping.

UptoapointLordCopper - Sorry, but I don't get why you're so angry? Can you explain rather than bite my head off?

I came to this thread because it challenged my world view and I wanted to learn. I usually do this by explaining what I see (which I know is just that, my perception, nothing else) and asking questions of other people's experiences. I'm sorry if my views are in some way offensive to you, but if you could at least explain why, maybe I'll learn something.

Mostly I live in a lovely world, but it could be lovelier. It'd be lovelier without sexisim, trying to assign roles and characteristics by gender rather than just treating people as equal individuals.

No idea what the bit about emasculated men is about.

I think an excellent example of sexism is how women cannot talk about sexism online without a man turning up and telling them they're wrong.

Says it all really.

Elephantspoo, you don't seem capable of thinking outside your own ingrained form of learned gendered behaviour. Why don't you start by unpicking your attitude to 'emasculation'? Why would a SAHF be less 'masculine' than a working father, or indeed an unemployed man without children? Do a man's testicles shrink dangerously every time he changes a nappy or does a load of laundry?

Obviously, you're entitled to your own preferences in terms of what forms of masculinity you find attractive, but please don't assume the rest of us suffer from your Ayn Rand caveman fantasies.

And do you think things like the pay gap and the under-representation of women in positions of power are imaginary?

I'm not angry.

Perhaps you can clarify exactly what you mean by building personal fiefdom?

And SAHP = emasculated? Or is that only for men?

And running your own business = the only respectable way of earning a leaving?

So far the evidence is that you don't get it.

Actually, fuck that. Don't reply. I spent all day today picking to bits exactly what a student meant by every sentence he wrote. Can do without more of that.

How on earth is being a SAHD 'emasculated'?

You do know what 'emasculated' means, right? And you realize it's a tiny bit incompatible with, uh, being a dad?

Elephantspoo, you don't seem capable of thinking outside your own ingrained form of learned gendered behaviour.

Thank-you for being honest.

Why don't you start by unpicking your attitude to 'emasculation'? Why would a SAHF be less 'masculine' than a working father, or indeed an unemployed man without children? Do a man's testicles shrink dangerously every time he changes a nappy or does a load of laundry?

Are all of societies roles (jobs) capable of being done equally well by both genders? Yes. Is society amenable to having all roles available to both genders? Currently not. We are (most of us), or have been raised to be, prejudice towards one gender or other in some jobs. I am prejudice, but I would have a problem leaving DCs in the care of male nursery staff. I know they are CBR checked. But it makes me feel anxious and I cannot work, so I use a nursery that only employs women (presumably by chance, and not by diktat). But would a nursery run solely by men ever succeed in business?

Obviously, you're entitled to your own preferences in terms of what forms of masculinity you find attractive, but please don't assume the rest of us suffer from your Ayn Rand caveman fantasies.

Yes I see that other people find other characteristics attractive, and I tend towards the 'caveman provider' if you want to characterise me that way. And I have to confess to reading a little Ayn Rand, so you have a point. That is why I came to read this thread, because I wanted to expand my thinking.

And do you think things like the pay gap and the under-representation of women in positions of power are imaginary?

As regards the pay gap, I can honestly say it's not something I have ever experiences, but that is pure happenstance and I accept not typical. I have worked in call centres where the staff was fairly mixed, but most of the supervisors were female. We were all paid the same, male and female, at least from what I could see of the pay grades immediately above mine.

But could I compare my job to a guy installing satellites? Or the security staff who were subcontracted? Or the cleaning crews that came in at night? No. I work for myself now, so I don't have a frame of reference outside of low level jobs (bar work, waiting tables, sitting on a checkout, stacking shelves, etc.), but on the whole. I don't quite see, at that level, where the pay gap was between me and a male in a similar role. So I assume this is a management level issue within corporations?

And yes, I do see the lack of women in positions of power, although I would point to the Federal Reserve and ask, "Is there a more powerful organisation on the planet?"

I think the reason men can be all relaxed about not judging themselves is because so much less is expected of them.

It's like these posts by elephant that can somehow admit that men (as a collective of course!) cause much more physical damage yet still conclude that women are the more malevolent sex.

And of course we can change gender seeing that gender is a social construct (and no that's not the same as biological sex). You only have to compare different cultures to see that male violence towards women is affected greatly by upbringing.

I'm not trying to be harsh, but, reading this thread ... it strikes me you're terribly invested in this idea you 'want to expand my thinking' and you seem to imagine it's terribly, terribly important you should provide masses of questions and wait self-importantly for us to answer them.

But it's not your thread. You're distracting from someone else's really pretty important and personal question. And, as others who've been posting and not (like me) lurking have said, that's sort of like making work for us.

Why don't you offer a few helpful points, or start your own thread? It's getting exhausting reading this one.

I'm not angry.

Sorry, but you seem to be.

Perhaps you can clarify exactly what you mean by building personal fiefdom?

I was talking specifically about a Radio 4 broadcast I had listened to this week where the guests were talking about their experiences in the workplace, and the lack of support women in power give younger women coming up the ranks. They were describing the phenomenon of women who found they are the only women in a powerful position in an organisations being defensive of their position among men and pulling up the ladder behind them (the exact phrase used) and acting like queen bees (the exact phrase used).

That was what I was referring to. I am sure the discussion is available online, it was only in this past week, and it was definitely on Radio 4.

So it may be complete tosh. But that is why it was being discussed on the radio I suppose. To explore whether or not is was rubbish.

And running your own business = the only respectable way of earning a leaving?

Did I say that? It was allegory. I was clearing explaining the concept of an awakening in understanding, not proposing a lifestyle choose. You are attacking for no just reason.

So far the evidence is that you don't get it.

Thank-you. That is why I am reading and asking questions.

Do you personally agree with the thesis discussed on R4? It sounds like you do.

I don't.

I've never observed that 'Queen Bee' behaviour. But it sounds a lot like some of what DH talked about in a former workplace - among men. So that theory does sound toshy to me TBH. Radio 4 is good but you don't have to believe everything on it.

I think the reason men can be all relaxed about not judging themselves is because so much less is expected of them.

Why is less expected of men than women? I only 'allow' people to expect things of me because I choose to. My mother is allowed to expect me to not forget her birthday, and DH is allowed to expect me pander to some of his wants because I choose to. My costumers expect me to be polite and professional. I don't work in a corporate environment, so I no longer need to dress and act in any prescribed corporate manner.

It's like these posts by elephant that can somehow admit that men (as a collective of course!)

I don't get the insinuation. Were you expecting me to say, 'yes, some men are violent as individuals, and don't act in some tribal unit?

... cause much more physical damage yet still conclude that women are the more malevolent sex.

That in no way reflects what I said. But if you choose to read a prescribed set of connotations into my words, to fit your view, no words would be suitable. There is no judgement of good or evil in my text, and no statement of intent. I only draw comparison. I don't even allude to motive.

And of course we can change gender seeing that gender is a social construct (and no that's not the same as biological sex). You only have to compare different cultures to see that male violence towards women is affected greatly by upbringing.

I don't disagree with this.

*Do you personally agree with the thesis discussed on R4? It sounds like you do.

I don't.*

No because I saw no evidence, but the argument was convincing enough to raise questions.

JeanneDeMontbaston - OK, I'll shut up. My apologies to OP and sorry I can't contribute constructively to this discussion.

elephants - if there is stuff you want to discuss/learn about feminism/sexism etc, do start a thread or contribute to others - I think your first contribution to this one sort of plonked in and came across more like you were pontificating than trying to learn, which from subsequent posts probably wasnt your intent.