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.

I have to say, I’m getting bloody fed up of people coming in and de-trailing threads and turning it back, yet again, to Posie’s tweets (and their imposition, out of context, on what those tweets could mean). One of my own threads, about the Truro meeting, was completely overtaken by people (I don’t know their sex) who wanted her taken out back and shot (and us, the organisers, along with her, for daring to “allow” her to speak).

I find it particularly ironic in a thread which is about women being policed.

Thank god we have got women like Posie who won’t be brow-beaten and hounded away, but who bounce back time and time again to speak out on issues that impact women. And no, that doesn’t mean people can’t disagree with her, but could we try and stay on topic ffs?

Perhaps, instead of de-railing yet again, some of the people who insist on following her around an Internet forum to pounce on her every time she opens her mouth would like to come along to a meeting to get their point of view across?

Perhaps, instead of de-railing yet again, some of the people who insist on following her around an Internet forum to pounce on her every time she opens her mouth would like to come along to a meeting to get their point of view across?

Literally who did this

Did you have anything to say about why women are more language policed than men Taco?

Indeed

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

I agree. There is this terrible thing called "the Patriarchy" which oppresses women; the Patriarchy should be dismantled- by whom is not clear. Society? Men? But heaven forfend any suggestion that women might take an active part.

There was a thread a while back bemoaning yet another tasteless, sexist Miley Cyrus video. The general tenor (and I am paraphrasing) was , yes it was terrible, but this is just what poor little Miley has to do to make a career in the music industry. No , it isn't. It was very rich Miley making even more money colluding in the making of tasteless, sexist videos because she lacks any other discernible talent.

Well said Writersblock2

I think that women on the whole are more language policed because we are constantly checking ourselves to make sure that men don't 'check' us instead. I had an abusive father growing up and I would remember trying to get my siblings not to make any noise or be silly at all because I was scared he'd take it out on all of us. I knew that what they were doing wasnt that important, but i was overly paranoid because i knew how easy it was to set him off. I guess this situation isn't dissimilar; we're always policing the actions between each other in a subconscious fear that men will find another reason to hate us. Thats my take on it anyway. See the self-ID debate for example. Even on this forum we are policing each other to make sure that we don't say something TRAs can twist and distort to support their agenda.

I don't know if you want to discuss this on the thread Posie but I asked you about whether you believe in privilege and you didn't answer.. would I be able to discuss it with you on PM if you don't want to do it here?

I think I agree Lass..... there's no real reason for women to be arseholes to other women. It's not always the disenfranchised! Sometimes women with power or in desire of perceived power are every bit as ambitious as men, just maybe a little more vicious and then odious in. defeat.

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.

Yes. And in general, playing the ball not the (wo)man is better for everyone.

I think I read a while back a piece by Mary beard about how common the idea of muting women’s mouths has been over history...I can’t find it.

Scolds bridles, the trope of women nagging, oral rape and those charming chaps on YouTube advocating kerb stomping women who disagree with them. There’s a definite theme of abuse of the mouth to silence women.

You only have to look at how women simply saying no to men is construed as literal violence to see a modern manifestation of this. And on so many feminist threads the TRAs and MRAs are there with abuse that boils down to ‘shut up and be nice^

I’ve had enough of nice. I’ll express my peaceful opinion and if people disagree they’re welcome to put forth their own. But I won’t be silenced or have my language policed.

Nope, ‘the problem’ is not that I am confused regarding agency, or that I am positioning all women as helpless ‘victims’. That’s such an unimaginative smear TBH ‘unless women accept responsibility for everything we say they should they are saying they are not responsible for anything’

Women are responsible for the things it is reasonable for them to be held responsible for. They are accountable when it is fair for them to be accountable and to those who have a reasonable claim to having been aggrieved.

The problem was princess is pretty angry with other women because she experiences consequences for breaking cultural expectations. Princess is directing said anger at me personally.

I think it’s a mistake to attribute those negative consequences to women rather than patriarchy. I’d be interested to hear arguments that justify ‘women who do change their names to their husband’s name are responsible for the negative consequences I have suffered by defying that cultural expectations’

Unless you have seen me personally making ‘sex positive’ Pomo bullshit Lib fem arguments in favour of sexualisation in music videos or the like I’ll thank you not to imply that is something I would believe or say.

I’ve repeatedly said I believe that stuff is essentially the same crap as this scrutinising of individual choices re private lives.

I am of the view that any woman who thinks that when she makes a choice it is her choice alone and it is not subject to negotiation with patriarchy is kidding herself. Even when it is a choice she wants for herself

I profoundly disagree with this. This is just another way of infantilising women.

I don’t believe that recognising that women are oppressed by a system which favours men has anything to do with infantilisation of women.

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.

There is still absolutely zero way of getting round the fact that it's other women who are preventing me from having my choice offred (the use of the word oppressive to describe them was yours though) Ie of remaining Ms Ownname and that not meaning anything controversial and not leading to any assumptions being made about me. Yes, some of those women won't have been making a free choice. There are others who could have not called themselves Mrs Husbandsname and who understand the implications of their decisions, but have done it anyway. It is perfectly, entirely reasonable to assume such women are responsible for their decisions in that respect.

So again, yes it is other women who are preventing me from having my choice. They are not the ones who invented the patriarchal system in which this happens, but regardless it is still what they are doing that is having a negative impact on me.

Again, it is crucial that we are able to name this behaviour as unfeminist and not be policed into remaining silent about the impact these decisions have. None of this means patriarchy isn't oppressive either: again, that's a strawman.

Infantilising women would be saying women don’t have parity because they are not biologically capable of it. Saying women are biologically capable but they exist in a rigged system is infantilising how?

I’m still unclear why you believe it is other women simply making a different choice to you who are responsible for the negative consequences of breaking a patriarchal cultural convention for all women who do princess. Just saying over and over that it is other women doesn’t offer any insight into how you came to that conclusion.

No-one is claiming you said patriarchy isnt oppressive either.

I’m asking you why you think it is fair to hold other women’s personal choices responsible for harming you personally.

Taco.

I do believe in privilege as a structure within society, but I think it fails individuals and besides looking holistically I see little point in it. Where does it lead? (My thoughts are evolving on this) Often I feel it's used to silence people....

I agree re privilege and silencing posie.

I think lots of good ideas and tools have been hijacked and repurposed to perpetuate inequalities of all kinds in the last few years though.

The thread running through it all IMO is individualism.

Yup!

It's an easy win in a debate.

Unless you have seen me personally making ‘sex positive’ Pomo bullshit Lib fem arguments in favour of sexualisation in music videos or the like I’ll thank you not to imply that is something I would believe or say

Fgs - not everything is about you. I quoted one comment by you and then made a general comment.

You have in any case missed the point. In the thread I was referring to posters were not defending Miley Cyrus from a sex - postive view point. The defence of her was that it was unfair and horrible of me to say that she was colluding in promulgating objectification of women.

Yeah, that’s a pomo Lib fem position that a woman’s choice is feminist because a woman chose it.

That’s a gross misrepresentation of things I have said.

There’s quite a large gap between women are accountable for everything they do and no women are ever accountable for anything they do.

Yeah, that’s a pomo Lib fem position that a woman’s choice is feminist because a woman chose it

That is not what the tenor of the thread was. Her dubious choice was not being defended on that basis. Far from it - the defence was that she had no choice - what with her being a victim of the patriarchy. What was being criticised was my saying she was colluding with objectification.

That’s a gross misrepresentation of things I have said

I have lost track of which particular post of yours I am supposed to be misrepresenting. Not everything is about you. I disagree with what seems to be your premise that the patriarchy has to be dismantled yet women somehow have no agency in doing anything about it.

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

The idea that covering up both sexualises and desexualises makes perfect sense to me.

I find it difficult to see how the argument that veil is protecting women from lasciviousness does not lead to the logical conclusion that anyone not covering up must effectively be "asking for it"

I disagree with what seems to be your premise that the patriarchy has to be dismantled yet women somehow have no agency in doing anything about it.

That is the gross misrepresentation.

It is either lazy thinking or deliberate misrepresentation which is very common and happens all the time. Criticise capitalism - warns about communism, point out patriarchy exists - presses a point about believing women can take responsibility....

Women have no agency is not what I have said at any time. What I have said is women’s choices are all made in negotiation with patriarchy.

You should know, because you quoted it.