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.

this is called disagreement. You won't die.

That would make a good T shirt slogan.

I agree Offred, but women cannot be expected to constantly apologise for that,. I do get rather bored of privilege measuring. Is a white working class child more or less privileged than a black middle class child? When do we get to climb out of a class?

Personally I disagree with this. You wouldn't have a problem with people pointing out male privilege, so why is it different when it comes to race? I hate it when people say something stupid and counterproductive like 'check your privilege' and I would never expect anyone to feel 'guilty' about it either. What really annoys me is when people imply that it isn't there or even outright deny it because "oh don't you dare suggests that I'm privileged! How can I be? I'm a woman!" Thats where it becomes an issue for me. Btw I'm not suggesting for a second that you did this but I have seen it a lot on this forum.

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?

Well your post answers your question surely. some young Muslim women argue this. There is nothing to suggest that these same women are the ones wearing tight jeans or breast enhancements(this in my opinion at least is ridiculous anyway as it defeats the point of covering yourself). These young women are not speaking for every woman; there are hardly any hijabis that wear lots of tight-fitting clothing anyway(this is purely anecdotal but i know many Muslims being one myself).

Actually Taco, I am also divorced from the wholesale male privilege. Not denying that there are more men at the top of the privilege pile, but again I could come up with countless examples where that just is wildly inadequate to be anything other than bullshit.

And the last part was C&P from an article written by a Muslim, I reckon she knows a fair few Muslims too. She also says "It is complicated: veils for me represent both religious arrogance and subjugation; they both desexualise and fervidly sexualise. Women are primarily seen as sexual creatures whose hair and bodies incite desire and disorder in the public space. The claim that veils protect women from lasciviousness and disrespect carries an element of self-deception. I have been at graduation ceremonies where shrouded female students have refused to shake the hand of the chancellor. Veiled women have provoked confrontations over their right to wear veils, in courts, at schools and in colleges and workplaces. But I regard their victories as a rejection of social compromise.
Of even more concern are young Muslim lives. Little girls are being asked to don hijabs and jilbabs, turned into sexual beings long before puberty. You can even buy stretchy baby hijabs with fake Calvin Klein and Versace logos.

Like a half-naked woman, a veiled female to me represents an affront to female dignity, autonomy and potential. Both are marionettes, and have internalised messages about femaleness. A woman in a full black cloak, her face and eyes masked walked near to where I was sitting in a park recently, but we could not speak. Behind fabric, she was more unapproachable than a fort. She had a baby girl in a pushchair. Her young son was running around. Will the girl be put into a hijab, then a jilbab? Will the son expect that of his sister and wife one day? To never have the sun warm your face, the breeze through your hair – is that what God wants? Whatever happened to sisterhood?"

It seems she agrees with me about little girls too, perhaps you'll allow her the opinions that you were gleeful in accusing me of being Islamophobic? If that's the case you're possibly a terrible advocate of identity politics and need to have a sharp word with yourself.

Actually Taco, I am also divorced from the wholesale male privilege. Not denying that there are more men at the top of the privilege pile, but again I could come up with countless examples where that just is wildly inadequate to be anything other than bullshit.
So you just... don't believe in privilege? I apologise if I'm being thick here.

It seems she agrees with me about little girls too, perhaps you'll allow her the opinions that you were gleeful in accusing me of being Islamophobic? If that's the case you're possibly a terrible advocate of identity politics and need to have a sharp word with yourself.

I'm confused as to what you're trying to say here; I definitely disagree with the article that you have posted, for reasons that I already explained in the other thread.

perhaps you'll allow her the opinions that you were gleeful in accusing me of being Islamophobic?

There is an implication that you think I don't allow you opinions. I certainly do. I respond to your opinions, I never tried to take away free speech. But I disagree with the writer of the article as much as you, definitely. And I was never gleeful about anything. There is a lot of projection going on here. It seems to me that you are still trying to have a debate with me about the hijab or make me angry by suggesting that I am a terrible advocate of identity politics and that I need to have a sharp word with myself. That is not the point of this thread. If you want to debate with me further about Islam oppressing women you are free to DM me.

I'm amazed because your best friend VA did this to a woman

Hang on a minute - is posie supposed to disassociate from anyone guilty of the things she disagrees with?

It is possible to disagree with someone in one area and agree with them elsewhere.

This thread is going weird.

What about free association?

I wonder why 3 posters have appeared in quick succession making personal comments about the op.

I'm confused now PermissiontoSpeakSir where are the three posters making personal comments? Was this:

If that's the case you're possibly a terrible advocate of identity politics and need to have a sharp word with yourself

not a personal comment? Yet a poster with an opposite view is suddenly suspicious. Again. How many times must we make the accusations of posters not being genuine?

The Posie fanclub can't understand why some ppl disagree with her. "They must be trolls... etc. Here we go again.

No its not like that. It's just that flash , taco and southfields all came one after another when the thread had been more broadly about the issues raised, rather than criticisms of the op as an individual, up to that point.

Flash the thread is not about that. Mentioning it will probably get people telling you to stop derailing the thread. It doesnt matter that you werent the first to TAAT but you have an opposing opinion, so I wouldn't mention it. It will just rile up other posters.

PermissiontoSpeakSir there have been no 'personal comments' though? Only from posie herself? Which is why what you said is confusing.

I think the hijab on seven year old girls is sexualising and therefore disgusting.,

Personal criticisms of op

Number 1:
"Ha!
The irony of this when the poster has policed other women's clothing choices.
How funny..."

Number 2:
I'm amazed because your best friend VA did this to a woman

Number 3:
I disagree with the writer of the article as much as you, definitely.

Although admittedly taco you are the least of the three, the fact that you were making it about the op after the other 2, when up until then the thread was discussing the broader issues, it looked like a sudden pile on to me.

And the sneery Posie Fanclub.... how old are you? There's no fan club, there are women prepared to make shit up and think women aren't allowed opinions, and then there's the rest of us on this thread.

I've read 6 pages of this thread and feel I don't need to read any more.

The threads that popped up on MN after WPUK's decision were not places I felt I could honestly engage. I find that discussions like these are best done on hangouts or Skype among women only, esp the women that are directly involved.

I find the constant interjections by those who are doing them in bad faith do not help. In fact, they hinder the process. I especially have issues when men try and use these threads as ways to divide and conquer.

I have had many disagreements with women I support (and I do support your work Posie, just like I support Greer) regarding feminist ideas but I don't think they get solved on message boards. They get solved by talking to women in other mediums where there's a certainty that it's women only.

Your question is a good one and has elicited some good responses. However, it's going sideways and personal.

Meh. I'm almost 50 and I've had my days of being immature and backbiting other women. I find once it turns personal, it just isn't going to be productive.

That said, I really love talking about issues that affect women as a class and how to resolve them.

Cheers

And I take exception to people following a particular poster around mumsnet to goad her into a particular argument.

Anyone would think it is an attempt to drive her from the forum.

Thanks PTSS.

I've been here for twelve years and am unlikely to leave. I can ignore those women, I'll try my best anyway!!

With regard to this thread...

Some women hold hardliner views on patriarchal religions as detrimental to all women.

Some women feel those hardliner views tip over into racist attitudes and may also alienate the voices of women who are too often unheard.

The question for feminism about this, to my mind, is whether or not either side should be excluding the other side from gatherings and meetings discussing women's rights. Is there a threshold - from either side - of acceptability?

*I disagree with the writer of the article as much as you, definitely.

Although admittedly taco you are the least of the three, the fact that you were making it about the op after the other 2, when up until then the thread was discussing the broader issues, it looked like a sudden pile on to me.*

But what I said wasn't a personal comment? She suggested that I would allow the writer of the article to have an opinion and not her. I debunked this by saying that I disagree with her as much as the writer. That's answering her question no?

I'm exhausted by this, so I'm going to stop replying to people now. I'm tired of accusations of pile ons and silencing when I have consistently been polite and respectful throughout any threads I have been on. I have never once implied or said that anyone can't have an opinion, so I don't really know what people keep implying.

I debunked this by saying that I disagree with her as much as the writer.

That strikes me as a 'personal' position of disagreement with an individual, owing to prior conversations, rather than merely commenting on one or two posts in the context of the wider thread.

I know i said i wouldnt keep posting...

But I literally answered her question! How is that contributing to a pile on? My god

The question for feminism about this, to my mind, is whether or not either side should be excluding the other side from gatherings and meetings discussing women's rights. Is there a threshold - from either side - of acceptability?

Yes, better to get back to the point.

I don't think there is a threshold, more a slant. One group is entitled to prioritise the upholders of patriarchal religion over the hard line critics who make them feel unwelcome.

Other groups are entitled to prioritise unflinching criticism of patriarchy in all its forms, even if the majority of their skin colours/heritages is from an oppressor class.

I don't believe excluding either (upholders of patriarchal religion or hardline critics of religion from an oppressor class) from open meetings but it is fine to exclude them from organising if they do not fit your slant.