Women policing women

[therealposieparker]

Why do women do this?

Why do women, particularly left wing women, police each other's language and actions so much worse than men?

Even Germaine Greer is being hailed as no feminist for a few comments, despite the incredible work she's done in the past.

Feminists are pretty awful at this call out culture, I think men on the left do it to women but not to each other. I have a feeling this is why women are more likely to be religiously observant too, but that may be a different conversation. However I instinctively think it all feeds from the same conditioning, women "to be seen to be" XXX in order to compete with other women.

As of late I've noticed more odious behaviour from supposed feminists and it's made friends of mine abandon that label.

The difference is class analysis or scrutiny over individual choices.

I used the word concerned quite deliberately BTW in the context of this thread about policing.

The personal is political does not mean ‘women can change things by making different choices’ that’s a liberal feminist interpretation of it that began during the second wave.

It does not work both ways. The personal is the concern of the political. I do not interpret it to mean either that the personal is a means for political change or that the political takes priority over personal material reality.

Yes I can see that you'd very much like to get away from it offred, but so far the explanations why have not been at all persuasive.

Really, one always wonders whether someone trying to play down the political-ness of the personal is doing it because they don't like it being pointed out that some choices they have made are not feminist and may not have helped other women. Surname changes is a particularly common one for this, there's real resistance from some quarters to women speaking about the impact that other women's individual decisions have had on them. Whenever I point out on here that other women choosing to be Mrs Husbandsname makes it harder for me to have my choice of being Ms Myname and that actually be neutral like men get, I'm invariably met with howls of outrage and refusal to see the point. Personally I'm quite happy to state that I have made and may well make in the future choices that are objectively unfeminist, surname just isn't one of them.

None of this means we don't or can't place sufficient emphasis on class analysis or of the wider context or men's behaviour either. That's a strawman. The fact is that they all matter.

That’s a perfect example of positioning women and their individual choices as your enemy rather than the patriarchal system which is the source of the oppression of women IMO.

It’s not women who have made it hard for you to have the name you want is it?

And yes, sometimes it does mean that in practice class analysis is lost. Like on the surname thread.

A woman experienced a man using feminism to dominate, shame and put her down. She came to feminism chat and was then shamed for her choice not being objectively feminist.

The man escaped criticism beyond ‘he’s a dick but I agree with his sentiment’

There was vanishingly little analysis of the power dynamic behind ‘not a good feminist’ coming from said man.

It is women who are making it harder, yes. If all women were to eg adopt one title in the same way that Frau and Madame are used in some countries, there could be a neutral title available for me to use in a way that there isn't now. It's literally the choices of other women that are preventing me from having mine. In the same way that the choices of women like me would be preventing those who like to be called Mrs Husbandsname and have that be an unremarkable choice from having theirs, if enough of us did it. The fact that women make particular choices in the context of patriarchal oppression doesn't mean that those choices don't impact on me, maybe harm me. It means they weren't the source of course, but that's not the same thing.

The problem here is that you're not accepting that sometimes women use agency, when we have it which we often don't, to do things that can be harmful to other women. It's crucial we can name that as anti-feminist.

The thread you mention also contained several attempts to police women for naming choices that other women have made that have harmed them as anti-feminist. Vanishingly little analysis of that, too...

Yes, I’m particularly aware of that point re agency and harm to other women.

It is in fact the point I am making and the subject of the thread re policing.

Mmmm.... I think it is about picking your battles. I know I personally wouldn't choose to be Mrs Husband'sName and I don't think it is helpful when women choose it, but I don't think a woman is being antifeminist when she does - she is being Patriarchy-appeasing.

However, if a woman chooses to be Mrs Husband'sName and then shouts from the rooftops that this is a feminist act and that in order to be actualised as a woman or feminist you must join her and do the same, then she is being antifeminist because she is breaking the work of feminism, upholding patriarchy and oppressing other women as an expression of 'personal choice'.

There's a difference between being 'unfeminist' and 'antifeminist'.

It is pretty much impossible to live without doing some unfeminist things. Doesn't necessarily mean you are actively undoing the work of feminism - you just aren't helping either.

And that is the crux of it.

'Not helping' does not mean 'actively undermining'.

Perhaps there was vanishingly little analysis of women who choose to take a husband’s name being oppressive to women who want to keep a birth name because that’s actually a deeply dubious POV for someone on this board.

Even if all women were able to make free name choices without consequence and all women decided to keep particular names then patriarchy would simply draw new battle lines or abandon names as a battle ground having decided it wasn’t important IMO.

That’s what has traditionally happened re advancement of women’s rights in history and it has happened that way because it is patriarchy that is oppressive not women.

I have my husbands name in mine so I match my children, but I didn't lose my name.... although it's still my father's and not my mothers. So even if I kept my name it's still not feminist in essence is it?

My husband would not change his name, it didn't even occur to him and as I only even thought about it on the day of our ten minute wedding I didn't have time to argue my case!

If it were up to me women en would carry women's names and men men's.... officially children have both and then lose the opposite sex name when they turn eighteen.

You can actually have whatever name you wish to and you can also have the title ‘Ms’ in the UK...

What you cannot do, as with all women, is make choices that defy patriarchal expectations without suffering consequences.

For many women the consequences go far beyond not being able to pay in cheques, getting Christmas cards in the wrong name etc etc. Some women risk destitution or violence re name stuff.

I find the idea that you don’t know that pretty shocking.

As all know my surname is Keen-Minshull

Getting a letter addressed to Mrs Keen-Mental was particularly amusing!!

Offred... are you responding to me?

I suppose that there is a difference between 'class' solidarity and individual heroics when it comes to feminism.

Some believe that you must toe the line, look to the consensus before acting, in order to not screw it up for everyone.

Others think "stuff it, I am going to act according to my own conscience, even if it sometimes causes friction".

It becomes problematic when the consensus crew go unheard because their voices are so watered down, samey and lacking in character that no one can be bothered listening so they hang on the coat tails of the breakout crew for a bit of publicity, then get pissed off the shero doesn't toe the line of the consensus. (While the now pariah shero gets pissed of that the consensus crew doesn't support them even though they themselves rejected their prescriptive cues).

I find the idea that you don’t know that pretty shocking.

Who are you reponding too?

Princess, sorry, walking to school!

Keen-Mental is hilarious!

Ha!
The irony of this when the poster has policed other women's clothing choices. How funny...

flash do you care to share your entire social media back history so we can trawl through it and publicly condemn every incident we find of your hypocrisy and wrong think please (you are human therefore we will find it)? Its only fair.

I find it hard to comment specifically without some examples. For example, I have criticised GG about some of her recent comments at Hay re rape - which I think are grossly misinformed and do many survivors much harm. I don't see what's wrong with that - I'm not critiquing her life's work. She also can take it. I am not a fan of "don't criticise GG cos we owe her" - just because she's an academic doesn't mean her opinions are automatically to be followed.

I really think the wider dynamics of the patriarchy have a much bigger impact on women's behaviour than is generally understood. A lot of the control and policing is unconscious I think, and a lot of it is about power. We all need to have some sense of power and control in our lives - try being at the mercy of others and welfare and see how that works for you.

In general, women have so little power in the patriarchy that they sometimes can only gain a sense of power by policing other women and kids. Women being overly controlling can also be as a result of male violence - it's impossible to take your anger to a man/men where they don't own the impact of their behaviour, so women control other women and kids and unconsciously take that displaced anger to them. Also women get rewarded by men in many cultures for policing other women, so they just automatically do that not realising what they do is actually to get male approval. Because to support "errant, individual and opinionated females" often brings sanctions of exclusion, not approval.

Also, women aren't generally taught now to assert themselves, rebut comments so they don't take them personally and so on. Emotional intelligence is learned through experiencing it, normally as a child. So if your culture/family etc isn't known/doesn't know how to be assertive, then it takes a very long time (generations) for girls/ women to have the opportunity to learn other ways. Girls, like boys, mirror what their parents did mostly, despite what their parents say.

Oh hi Flash....

I am allowed to make a critique of clothing choices that I deem anti women. I see those items as oppressive, I see those items pushed onto kids as pretty oppressive. You clearly don't, this is called disagreement. You won't die.

I don't see raising the issue of policing women's language as in a hypocritical position to criticising the message of clothing I see as oppressive. All religions cast women as sinners and temptresses. Conservative Islam has revived the slander for our times. Women have to be sequestered or contained lest they raise male lust and cause public disorder. Some young Muslim women argue that veils liberate them from a modern culture that objectifies and sexualises females. That argument is appealing; but if credible, why would so many hijabis dress in tight jeans and clinging tops, and why would so many Muslim women flock to have liposuction or breast enhancements?

Anyone is free to criticise GG's views, just not casting all her work aside for her views on one issue.

Completely agree woman.