I almost want to stand up and applaud this quite outstanding level of whataboutery for the poor menz...

[ShotsFired]

Original article link (depressing, not surprising etc): www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2017/aug/30/keith-mann-the-inside-man-who-has-exposed-tech-industry-sexism

Comment:
I believe in equal opportunities , not equal outcomes . That said , I smile at the amount of time examining sexism in tech / science / engineering when there is a dearth of consideration given to the catastrophic loss of male teachers , desperately needed to reach out to disillusioned boys . Male teachers are an endangered species in primary schools and it's getting that way in secondary also . This is spreading to other 'caring' professions too as I noticed when visiting prospective universities with my daughter . 90% plus of psychology graduates are now women ..... at s time when men's mental health is in crisis . But hey , who cares?

I expect he's is too busy to write more bunkum because he spends his life campaigning and working to improve the ratios of men in teaching and other caring professions, given how strongly he feels about it. Right? Rght...? Hello?

So you're not here to debate feminism but socio-economic issues? If you feel the only way to get men and women to be equal is to cancel capitalism, then I can't engage further because I simply don't agree and certainly none of my ideas or thoughts, which are rooted in changing the way we view people within the society we live in (which I'm broadly fine with) are every going to resonate with you. You want to have a discussion on capitalism vs socialism that's fine. But I'm not particularly interested in that discussion and it's not where I'm focused.

That's fine - but you won't gave feminism in a market system of exchange in which even people are commodities. Forget about it.

Is there any data on how many men and women from poor backgrounds you employ? Are there any men who grew up on a council estate in Leeds and went to a state comprehensive as a partner in your firm? If so how many?

How much do the (mainly women I should think) who clean your law firms offices get paid?

Maybe you could have an equality and diversity policy to ensure that exactly the same number of men and women are represented in the cleaning staff (equal opportunity exploitation) and there's a 50/50 gender split in the partnership of your firm who own about 40 times the amount the cleaners do.

Victory for women and job done eh?

This is what I dislike about this E and D stuff; it's the neoliberal right dressed as the left. Diversify a shitty system rather than change it.

Feminism should not function as a liberal gloss for capitalism.

One more question to Oleanna. Has calling torture 'enhanced interrogation technique' made torture any better?

Has calling torture 'enhanced interrogation technique' made torture any better?

That's a great example of language being used to obscure and minimize an abhorrent practice.

What's your point?

That you can call anything anything you like but it stays the same regardless. I can be homophobic without using any homophobic words.

I'm sure we can all come up with examples where a change of language doesn't change reality (in fact Datun gave a very good example). What that particular change of language has done is made torture more acceptable or palatable to those doing it. And is a very good example of the patriarchy in action and what we are trying to counteract.

What we are trying to do is change it the other way. Take language that doesn't reflect reality and make it more realistic e.g. child pornography to images of child sexual abuse. Or naming the problem such as male violence, rather than the rather vague and not based in reality 'people' who are violent when all the perpetrators are men. Or removing words that are used exclusively (and usually detrimentally) towards women from PDRs (really really good idea btw!).

On the subject of porn and your defeatist (or is it pro) attitude towards it. I'm sure you don't think we should just bow to the inevitable over images of child sexual abuse do you? Only those images that portray abuse of women perhaps?

Changing language is one of the starting points for changing attitudes.

It really hasn't been very long since people genuinely thought women should be paid less than men, for doing the same job, purely because they were women. There was an innate, gut feel that women were just less than. By virtue of their sex.

The echo of that shows in the performance reviews mentioned above. Nothing concrete, just the kind of sneaky feeling that she's not doing something quite right, because she's not doing it like a man. Or, that she is doing it exactly like a man, but it's still not quite right because being like a man is unladylike and not to be borne. Because that's not what she's for.

The reason why we can change these things is because language matters. They can't actually come up with a bloody good reason for those reviews, because they are not allowed to use the language to describe them. By law. They can't discriminate based on their dinosaur views.

Yes, they personally might still hold them, but it does change things.

You only have to look at the mother in law and father in law threads on here to see the following generation to be totally aghast at the views that their parents in law hold. Genuinely flabbergasted.

So it has the effect of very effectively distilling society in to those who want progress and those who don't.

Those who don't will invest in things like pornography and prostitution. And find a ready market.

But prostitution and coercive sex has been taken out of marriage, at least. And dating. And because women will become more representative as law makers and judges, it will continue.

As I said, it's a slow burn.

Is there any data on how many men and women from poor backgrounds you employ? Are there any men who grew up on a council estate in Leeds and went to a state comprehensive as a partner in your firm? If so how many?

Why would I care about this in a conversation about feminism? This is EXACTLY the point this thread started with. Why is it that any discussion of feminism, must be derailed because we're not also doing our damnedest to make sure that male lawyer from an estate in Leeds is getting his due? It's not that I don't care about him or the issues that mean he has fewer opportunities. But that is not what I am currently thinking about or focusing on. And this discussion is about feminism, not issues with class.

There are other people who can think about those issues or other times I'll engage with them. I don't see why feminists always have to be kind to every group that's marginalised? Is it because we're women and we're supposed to be nurturing? Are you asking that Leeds Council Estate lawyer what he is going to do about ensuring the woman who he lived next door to in high school is also going to make partner?

I'm really tired of this. I'm tired of being told what I should be focusing on as a feminist. I'm tired of being told I'm wrong about the things that concern me and that the real issues are something else - usually something that affects men. I'm tired of being told I'm making a fuss when men mansplain to me and I'm tired of the eye rolling when I suggest that the language we use to describe woman is a huge problem. I posted on Facebook about the way female olympic athletes are spoken about and my post was filled with people telling me I should be worrying about bigger issues. Screw it. These are issues and they're ones I care about. And you know what, I'm perfectly capable of caring about these issues while also doing my bit to help local schools that perform less well and are in areas that are poorer to improve themselves.

Horses sweat, men perspire and ladies glow

Language matters. You can say the same thing many ways, and they all lead people to slightly different inferences.

Why is it that any discussion of feminism, must be derailed because we're not also doing our damnedest to make sure that male lawyer from an estate in Leeds is getting his due? It's not that I don't care about him or the issues that mean he has fewer opportunities. But that is not what I am currently thinking about or focusing on. And this discussion is about feminism, not issues with class.

Ok, fair enough. Let's forget about men and make this squarely about women. You say your firm makes efforts to become more representative of women of colour. What is your firm doing to be more representative of women from poorer backgrounds? Nothing.

And the reason it is doing nothing is that to raise the issue of class - of socio-economic inequality - would expose it as the preserve of some very privileged people who are giving themselves a pat on the back for drawing up some equality and diversity initiatives which - conveniently enough - in no way threaten the system of inequality of which they are part and cost them nothing.

This is why your firm will present itself as very progressive in terms of gender and race, but will employ women (many of them migrants I would venture) to clean its offices for a pittance with no compunction at all. And the reason for that is in this system those women are not deemed worth very much. The improvement of their lot would require all the rich, liberal people to pay an awful lot more tax.

Furthermore, it's tendentious to insist so strongly that class be completely excluded from a feminist analysis. Lots of feminists would disagree with you. You wouldn't insist race be entirely exempt would you? So why class? Why cannot one form of inequality intersect with another?

And you know what, I'm perfectly capable of caring about these issues while also doing my bit to help local schools that perform less well and are in areas that are poorer to improve themselves.

Improve themselves how? I'll tell you how the lives of people in poorer areas can be improved. And it's not with charity from well meaning liberals. People 'doing their bit' is part of the problem. Victorian philanthropists did their bit. You or I are not important here. This is not about us.

Rather, the solution is that the government tax people who make lots of money and invest it in schools, hospitals, social housing and childcare.

Poor people do not need middle-class people to care about them. They need our money.

You have no idea about diversity initiatives john
Many of them do target social mobility. In many cases an initiative targeting BME employees will also attract working class employees due to the larger intersection between BME and working class.
This is all derailing bollocks to try to pretend it's fine to be anti more women in the work place.

Diversity initiatives do not target poor people, and the reason for that is that economic inequality is not an issue of diversity.

Bring poor is not an identity. In fact, the last thing you want is socioeconomic diversity. Another name for that is inequality.

Socioeconomic inequality is not an issue of diversity OR discrimination; it is an issue of wealth distribution. Making inequality purely a matter of identity is a neoliberal conceit, which is why equality and diversity has arisen in line with the ascendance of Thatcherite, market economics over the last few decades. You think these big capitalist companies are in opposition to equality and diversity? They love it. It means that they can transpose the focus from the economic inequality on which their affluence relies onto categories of gender and race which cost them nothing. They get to be goodies on the cheap. They legitimise the system by diversifying it in the most superficial way. The commitment to the (arguably patriarchal) ideal of market competition remains with the added illusion that everyone can compete equally.

The problem with social mobility is that it implies that the system of inequality stay the same but everyone gets to move around in it (although it is never taken to mean that people at the top come down as people at the bottom go up).

In the end, you still end up with a lot of poor people at the bottom and some rich people at the top. Is total equality possible? No. But socially just level of wealth distribution are, which blatantly do not exist at the moment.

I would argue that if your feminism consists of 'we'll give some women the chance to achieve wealth and success but a load of poor ones are fine so long as they're of an equal number to poor men' then that's a part of the problem.

I don't think that any kind of social justice issue should narrow itself to its own concerns. The Civil Rights activists knew very well that oppression of the blacks was an issue of economic oppression, and occurred within a system in which white people were also oppressed.

I would argue that if your feminism consists of 'we'll give some women the chance to achieve wealth and success but a load of poor ones are fine so long as they're of an equal number to poor men' then that's a part of the problem.

Does anyone here actually subscribe to that view?

John, you are derailing this thread.

Can you not see that you are doing exactly what the chap in the OP was doing? Striding into the ladies changing rooms and explaining everything to us?

The thread isn't about smashing capitalism (which frankly has never worked terribly well anywhere it's been tried - that 'least worst' label is a good one) It's about whataboutery and you are whatabouting like a pro.

Now everyone is engaging with you instead of debating the issue in the OP. Since we are talking about language, the phrase, "mansplaining" is rather apt.

Yeah I had hoped userblahblah was banned. This is not a happy turn of events.

Does anyone here actually subscribe to that view?

John is largely here to argue with the voices in his head, what he has decided feminists think, so in fairness, I don't really think that what anyone else thinks has any bearing on the direction of the conversation at all.

Does anyone here actually subscribe to that view?confused

Yes, absolutely.

The thread isn't about smashing capitalism (which frankly has never worked terribly well anywhere it's been tried - that 'least worst' label is a good one)

I'm not saying smash capitalism in all its manifestations. There is however a problem with the kind of market based capitalism that predominates at the moment. It is predicated on what some feminists have argued are patriarchal values of competition and the aggressive striving for scarce resources and opportunities. If the kind of co-operative, supportive and peaceable economic culture more in line with the values of feminism is to be fostered, then a critique of neoliberal capitalism will be required.

What lots of people on here seem to be positing as an idea - by implication at least - is the same competitive system but one in which women can compete equally. A system in other words in which there is a fifty fifty gender split of Goldman-Sachs execs all being paid the same obscene amount each; and a fifty fifty gender split retail workforce all being paid the same outrageously low wage.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

What lots of people on here seem to be positing as an idea - by implication at least

posited as an ideal I meant.

I would argue that if your feminism consists of 'we'll give some women the chance to achieve wealth and success but a load of poor ones are fine so long as they're of an equal number to poor men' then that's a part of the problem

What do you suggest then ? Is it "smashing capitalism" or smashing capitalism by some other description that doesn't sound equally deranged.

The improvement of their lot would require all the rich, liberal people to pay an awful lot more tax - how much 50% -60% of income? More ?

To my law firm example - clients are increasingly insisting law firms are more diverse. senior management therefore is incentivised to make sure this happens. But, they can't promote willy nilly as quality deteriorates. So they are incentivised to find ways to a) keep women or people of colour who are strong in their roles but might be leaving due to the way they feel in the organisation and b) to actively seek out and promote people who might have been overlooked due to unconscious bias.

This is interesting too, because it highlights how those at the top perceive these policies - your senior management are thinking 'oh god, now we've got to promote some black people/women because the client wants diversity, but we don't have anyone so quality goes down'

When they should be seeing it as is how present it (making sure rententiin is good/structural impediments are removed) i.e. a structural issue from the ground up - WHY are there no BME / women in those 'not quite senior enough' positions who can easily be developed?

It's the same point as thinking women are declined from roles as software engineers rather than examining the whole socialisation of women from birth which discourages them from ever even setting foot in the path that leads them to software engineer.

It's no good saying 'we will lower the bar for female entrants' or 'well we promoted her because we needed a black female face in the C suite' if people are ignoring the whole set up of society that results in people not reaching that level to begin with.

Seniority is no shield against shitty behaviour either. An extremely senior counsel in the company I work for left the company recently. All the usual spiel about leaving for further opportunities etc was trotted out.

But in reality she'd been at a meeting and was taking a taxi back with one of the exec guys to the hotel. He shoved his hand up her skirt and propositioned her. She told him in no uncertain terms to FO and was pretty shocked at the level of unprofessional behaviour.

The old boy network clanged shut and she was left with a choice of 'take this further and never work in the industry again or leave nicely with golden parachute and a glowing reference.'

Not much shocks me these days but I found that profoundly depressing. Senior counsel in a huge pharma, professional to the core and STILL reduced to something to fuck. 😡

We have a long, long way to go.

But is smashing the system going to mean more male primary teachers John?

Funny how some people can read the same posts and draw different inferences, isn't it?
Anyway, if there actually is anyone to whom my question 'Does anyone here actually subscribe to that view?' applies, how about letting them answer for themselves, hmm?

I would say at least 60%. There was a 60% top rate even under Thatcher's first term and a 90% rate in the 1950's. Then Britain was a thriving capitalist economy but one in which the state played a role in ensuring a just and productive distribution of surplus capital.

In addition land, financial transactions and other assets should be heavily taxed.

I'll tell you what it means, and this ties in neatly with feminism.

At the moment I work in a leading supermarket (I won't say which one). The checkout staff are mainly women, though there are more men on the shop floor. Anyway they're all paid the minimum wage and few have full-time contracts, giving them and annual wage of £10'000 a year.

That's obviously outrageous - you can't live on it, or at least not independently.

Furthermore, for the first two years of your employment at this supermarket you receive no sick pay. Recently one girl's father suddenly died meaning she had to take a few weeks off work. She didn't get paid.

Again, fucking outrageous.

You would think USDAW , the retail union, might be up in arms about this but they're so enfeebled as to be useless and people are too frightened to kick up a stink.

The store manager is a man. To all appearances he does next to nothing, spending most of most time strutting around the shop floor looking self important. God knows what he earns but it'll be well over 100K pa I would imagine.

Two questions.

1. Is this situation acceptable?
2. Coming from a feminist perspective and one of basic social justice, what is the solution?