Feminism and the WI

[FlamedToACrisp]

My friend suggested I should join the WI. I feel uncomfortable with the idea of joining any group which excludes certain people based on their sex, because I consider women and men should be treated equally. What are your views?

I am today wearing DP's old jogging bottoms and one of his t shirts, no makeup. I have short hair (admittedly not by choice but a combination of bad hairdresser and perimenopause lack of growth but anyhow...). I'm dressing, I suppose, as a gender stereotypical man? Does that make me a man?

I would have perhaps confused gender experts as a child? I loved all things pink and glittery, enjoyed playing with dolls, and liked (classic) Disney princesses. I also loved toy cars (I still have my toy hovercraft), trucks, trains (As an adult, I love trains), chemistry set, and hated netball. I much preferred playing football.

I can see there's a lot more to this than I'd thought at first!

Of course there are certain things I see as 'female' or 'feminine' behaviour, but the trouble with stereotypes is that they often are (or were) based on generalised real behaviours.

Generally speaking, people who choose to wear long dangly earrings are much more likely to be female.

For example, if I see a person who looks male, but is wearing dangly earrings, I would be more likely to think they were a woman who was deliberately signalling that she was female, despite looking male (rather than thinking, "I wonder why that bloke's wearing dangly earrings? odd choice.")

And if I see a person wearing a dress and makeup and high heeled shoes (all things I never wear) who looks facially vaguely like a woman (not immediately obvious as a man in drag), I don't examine her hip joints to check whether she is really a woman because it doesn't matter to me.

who looks facially vaguely like a woman (not immediately obvious as a man in drag), I don't examine her hip joints to check whether she is really a woman because it doesn't matter to me.

I’m afraid I’m unable to think anyone who states men in drag aren’t immediately obvious as Male, is genuine. Heels and a dress don’t make you a woman. All of us are perfectly capable of correctly sexing a person on sight, we do it all the time on a daily basis. Depending on where we are, it will matter if they’re Male because they pose a greater risk to us than females do and women are known to risk assess in this manner- there are plenty of study’s on this. Additionally, it also matters to me if I’m part of someone else’s sexual fetish, and some males dress this way for this reason- Grayson Perry has talked about this for instance.

For example, if I see a person who looks male, but is wearing dangly earrings, I would be more likely to think they were a woman who was deliberately signalling that she was female, despite looking male (rather than thinking, "I wonder why that bloke's wearing dangly earrings? odd choice.")

Absolutely no harm in a bloke wearing dangly earings. You only think of that as an odd choice because of the sexism that you have been marinaded in since birth. This isn't your fault but you can choose to try to overcome it. It's brilliant when men can overcome the sexism they have been marinaded in and can choose to wear the sparkly colourful things that sexist culture tells them is only allowed for women.

It's an entirely separate matter to claim that the man choosing to do that in some way is a woman. That is deeply problematic in a huge number of ways.

Well, women aren’t, and have never been treated equally to men have they, so I don’t think you can blame the WI for that.

For example, if I see a person who looks male, but is wearing dangly earrings, I would be more likely to think they were a woman who was deliberately signalling that she was female, despite looking male

You might think that's what you'd do, but is it really?

@ErrolTheDragon yes, I think so, unless there was absolutely no doubt, eg, he had a beard. But if it was someone fairly male-looking but could at a stretch be female, I'd see the earrings and assume they were female. Well, I might think, "Maybe he's gay." That's not to say I think men shouldn't be allowed to wear long earrings, just that in my experience, they don't.

@YobaOljazUwaque Absolutely no harm in a bloke wearing dangly earings. You only think of that as an odd choice because of the sexism that you have been marinaded in since birth.

It's not sexist to generalise, only to feel people shouldn't behave in ways outside those generalisations.

For example: If a friend who was having an extension built said, "I'm absolutely fed up with my builder!" I might reply, "What's the matter with him?" - assuming that a builder would be a man. But that's because most builders ARE men, not because I think women shouldn't be builders.

Tbh I think that's somewhat unusual, though there does seem to be some variation in people's ability to correctly determine sex, regardless of stereotyped dress, hair etc . I have an inkling that women with the most sensitive perception may often be those 'sensitised' to males by negative past experiences.

unless there was absolutely no doubt, eg, he had a beard.

Bigot
I take it you're not familiar with Alex Drummond of Stonewall?

@ThePurported don't confuse me any more than I already am!

It's not sexist to generalise, only to feel people shouldn't behave in ways outside those generalisations.

Those sorts of generalisations are sexist, but they're often so normalised (the 'marinade' of sexism is a good metaphor) that they're more a fault of society than inherent to the individual. We tend to refer to builders as 'he' because most builders are men. People still tend to default to referring as doctors as 'he' - actually, they're only just still majority men in this country nowadays (55%). However, once we notice what we're doing, if we carry on doing it we become complicit in perpetuating the problem - it's pretty clear how this has worked with racism and homophobia. Note I say 'we' - I catch myself making sexist generalisations.

Bringing it back to the WI, though - there are men who identify as trans. Yes, we know.
Why can't they set up their own support group, instead of gatecrashing and disrupting and using groups for women?

I

Those sorts of generalisations are sexist, but they're often so normalised (the 'marinade' of sexism is a good metaphor) that they're more a fault of society than inherent to the individual.

I really dislike calling these sorts of things, which are really just internal statistical judgements, sexist, I think it's misleading and leads to emphasis on things that aren't really problems and can't be changed.

Brains work by categorisation, and by looking at what happens most of the time under various circumstances and judging the probability of various possibilities. It has to work that way, we can't not notice, for example, that most builders are men, and if we say we always think it is equally likely that a given unknown builder could be male or female, we are probably telling a lie, to ourselves if no one else.

And for that matter, it's not just intuitive judgements, it's how statistical analysis works, and it's how science works. Without this sort of categorisation and noticing patters, we can't have either of those things.

We might think most builders are men because of sexism, but we don't avoid being sexists ourselves because we pretend we don't know its true that they are. We just get practice at pretending the obvious isn't obvious.

I take your point goosefoot - I was trying to say something not dissimilar in part. Builders usually being 'he' is observed . (and that's not a fault of society as I may have implied upthread, it's related to physicality). But what happens in the case of doctors where once that was the case but really isn't now? Apparently many children are still tending to refer to doctors as 'he', although the majority of GPs and paediatricians is female now - so they're not getting that from their own observation but from adults linguistically perpetuating what is now an obsolete stereotype.

I guess I'm somewhat sensitive to the problems associated with this because I'm a scientist, DD is an engineer - the automatic, unthinking categorisations based on past (and cultural) norms on a population level can have negative effects.

But in the builder analogy, lets recast the OPs earrings example and see whether that looks sexist shall we:

For example, if I see a person who looks female, but is wearing a hard hat and high vis jacket & working on a building site, I would be more likely to think they were a man who was deliberately signalling that he was male, despite looking female (rather than thinking, "I wonder why that woman is working as a builder, that's unusual.")

Generalisations may be ok in general (unknown, unseen builder or earring wearer) but are likely to be problematic if you apply them to individuals. The first glance may categorise using the stereotype shortcut, the second glance refines that.

@YobaOljazUwaque I see what you mean, but in that situation, I would just think, "That builder is a woman." I would NOT assume he/she had decided to become a builder to show the world he/she was male!

Perhaps the most prevalent is 'farmer', as in, 'the farmer and his wife would...' I still can't really imagine a woman as a farmer because of years of folk tales. Of course, I'm aware women do own and run farms, but if I hear 'farmer' I hear 'male'.

btw I particularly hate phrases such as 'Suzie is a woman pilot' or 'a female engineer', because they imply all the 'real ones' are male. Of course, if it matters, because the whole point of the phrase is to draw a differentiation, such as "I prefer to see a woman doctor," or "there are not enough female engineers at our company," I think it's OK.

You need to listen to The Archers more.

Don't worry, as long as the man says he's a woman he's A OK in the WI.

What is the difference though, between your reaction to the builder and the earring wearer - what yoba says seems pertinent, they're two sides of the same coin aren't they?

but in that situation, I would just think, "That builder is a woman." I would NOT assume he/she had decided to become a builder to show the world he/she was male! - of course you wouldn't, that is the point. The fact that the same kind of scenario with the sexes reversed does not prompt the same reaction in you is precisely because of the imbalance of power and status between the sexes which is so endemic in our society that it is sometimes hard to even notice it because we are so used to it. You prove my point.

Now think about why a male person adopting feminine things is more readily categorised as "really a woman" compared to a female person adopting masculine things? Is it because we subconsciously approve of people trying to "better themselves" in the social hierarchy but can't understand people wanting to "demote themselves" unless there's something "different" about them intrinsically?