Feminism - Distractingly Sexy Edition

[Liffguard]

We had a talk from our CO yesterday that touched on, amongst other things, the way the wind is changing regarding women in front-line combat roles in the UK military. As I understand it, the US has already opened up all military roles to women (or is in the process of doing so). Am I off-base there? Anyway, the gist of it was that it is now almost certain that within the next two years women in the UK will at the very least be able to serve in conventional front-line combat roles and in all probability will be able to serve in advanced roles (marines, parachute regiment, special forces etc.) as well.

The overall response was...not positive, and frankly a little disheartening. I won't go into the details of what's being said, I'm sure it's all been heard before. My question is whether anyone here is familiar with countries that already have women serving in all military roles and how it's worked out. How much resistance was there? Has that resistance decreased and acceptance increased?

[Lyanna Stark]

I know DatePalm has written some stuff on the Israeli armed forces, but it was quite a while ago.

[Lily Valley]

I want a gender-blind workplace and in my mind the only way to get that is to behave as if the workplace is gender-blind.  ('Fake it til you make it', as they say.)  When among the animals one cannot show fear. 

The sort of mentality which espouses old stereotypes about women also sees awareness-raising as whining.  It doesn't matter how true your words, if they appear to be coming from a place of self-pity it will be useless.

On one point I do agree with the 'what about the men?' crowd--the problem (while more visible for women) is not woman exclusive and the solution should not be woman exclusive.  The tendency for male-dominated fields to be dismissive towards non-males also tends to dismiss males who do not conform to the Man Code.

This is why I would not endorse an educational talk about Women in STEM. 

One time a colleague suggested that I do a lecture on lighting.  Within his pitch were the words, "as a woman" and that pretty much killed any chance of it happening.  I would be happy to talk to students about lighting but I would not want to talk to them 'as a woman.'

For me, the best of times were those in which I was oblivious to my own gender.  As a college student I was still blind to the affect and any talk of the obstacles I would face would have fallen on deaf ears because I didn't believe that shit applied to me.  I was blindly secure under the assumption that people were judging me on my merit.

I was very aware of my gender in my early professional years and took steps to hide it.  When I became a manager I lost sight of my gender because I was too fucking busy/stressed out to give it a thought and it didn't dawn on me that my managerial status affected the way people treated me.

Returning to the topic, I think that any discourse on handling prejudicial fuckwads should be gender neutral.  Some people will judge you poorly based on height, musculature, voice, wardrobe or size.  If anything, I have learned from those who disparaged me.  I would frequently get a guy who rolled his eyes and issued a derisive snort anytime I said anything.  This was effective in communicating that I was not to be taken seriously.  It works both ways.

A few months ago a nice, unassuming guy with a limp praised me and another woman for our strength.  I laughed at him.  "oh yeah, two women hang a moving light without assistance from a man--pictures at 11!"  1) I wasn't mad so I didn't put him on the defensive.  2) I pointed out the prejudice inherent in his praise while keeping it all in good fun.

Coping methods are largely individual.  You can't just draw a flowchart in which X derisive/dismissive attitude is met with Y coping strategy.  It is better to provide a range of options.

The important thing to remember is that those who are prejudiced against you don't know that.  They think they are responding to you purely on the data and any suggestion that they are prejudiced will elicit the defensive response.  If we have achieved nothing else, we have created a world in which to be labelled sexist is a mortal insult.

Choose your enemies wisely.

litechick, you've made some good points.  The last thing we both want is for my friend to come across as whining.  She's going to be very careful not to do that.  Her career has been interesting enough that I doubt she'll spend more than a few minutes on this.

The problems that tend to arise in STEM, specifically in Engineering and Physics within the private sector are not just the irritating comments.  They also tend to be linked with job assignments and with the way one gets reviewed or managed.  It can determine whether or not your ideas are moved forward and all of this will effect career advancement.  If you have a good manager, they'll see a colleagues derisive behavior and think that colleague is an idiot.  With a bad manager, it's your manager that's doing it and it sucks.

Coming out of academia, you may have one or two classmates that you just choose not to work with.  Plunging into a workforce where you have to prove yourself to EVERYONE you talk to before you can just get to work is really shocking.  I walked into my first job and by the end of the week I was second guessing myself.  After that I wondered why the HELL they needed a Physicist to sit around and write reports.  I managed to get my assignment switched.  Once that happened I had to prove to every single solitary person I interacted with that, yes, I was capable.  It got old.

I will definitely ask her to point out that dismissive behavior cuts both ways.  I've got friends in a variety of other fields, and there's a special kind of condescending behavior that engineers take with just about everyone.  They talk this way to anyone that isn't their boss.  Strategies for dealing with it would be good for all of them.  Mainly just acknowledging that it is NOT RIGHT and they don't have to put up with it.  At the very least they can stand up for their own ideas and they can say something.  

 

I lean towards the brutal truth. Yes the situation only improves when people push their way into it and force it to improve, but any particular individual needs to choose whether they are up to paddling against the shit stream and that choice deserves awareness of the reality of the situation.

I'm sure that things are improving, but I'm sceptical that it is happening particularly quickly. I feel like geek/nerd culture is being particularly slow to change and experiencing one of the biggest blow backs. I also feel geek masculinity is really it's own form of masculinity and hasn't really been sufficiently looked at on its own.

I wish one of my instructors had warned me.  At least I wouldn't have had to go through wondering if my boss was right and I actually WAS an idiot.  Turns out that isn't true.

Lyanna,

Research labs and academia are much better than the private sector.  This is what makes entering the work force such a shock.

The worst I had to deal with in research was a senior manager coming in to look at my lab and saying something stupid every six months.  My boss would just roll his eyes and then we'd get on with the work.  The funniest was when he told me to sweep the lab.  I asked him to loan me the broom he used to sweep his office.  Turns out we had a maintenance staff.

[SeanF]

We had a talk from our CO yesterday that touched on, amongst other things, the way the wind is changing regarding women in front-line combat roles in the UK military. As I understand it, the US has already opened up all military roles to women (or is in the process of doing so). Am I off-base there? Anyway, the gist of it was that it is now almost certain that within the next two years women in the UK will at the very least be able to serve in conventional front-line combat roles and in all probability will be able to serve in advanced roles (marines, parachute regiment, special forces etc.) as well.

The overall response was...not positive, and frankly a little disheartening. I won't go into the details of what's being said, I'm sure it's all been heard before. My question is whether anyone here is familiar with countries that already have women serving in all military roles and how it's worked out. How much resistance was there? Has that resistance decreased and acceptance increased?

Strange as it may seem, the one part of the UK that is probably most comfortable with the idea of women in combat roles is Northern Ireland. Considerable numbers of women served in the security forces, and bombs don't discriminate. Interestingly, the new leader of the DUP is a woman, who survived two assassination attempts.

[TerraPrime]

 

Returning to the topic, I think that any discourse on handling prejudicial fuckwads should be gender neutral.  Some people will judge you poorly based on height, musculature, voice, wardrobe or size. 

I disagree with this proposal.  I am a man, and I have yet to face adversity in STEM and academia on account that I am a man. On account that I am not a U.S. citizen, sure. On account that I speak with an accent, sure. But not as a man. Of course, I am not the sum of all men's experience, and maybe there are substantial hurdles against men in STEM fields. If so, let them hold seminars and workshops to address those.

Yes, we are judged by others on any number of factors. Yet, none of these other factors has, imo, the same consistent social and institutional reinforcement, as do race and sex. It is not that we are not judged by our height - we are; but not in the same inculcated and formalized ways as being a woman is judged in STEM field. Recently, a pregnant speaker a at science convention was disinvited (and later on, re-invited after the social media uproar) by none other than the European Commission (link: http://www.nature.com/news/scientist-disinvited-from-speaking-at-conference-because-of-her-pregnancy-1.18946 ). Do men get disinvited because they are not tall enough? Not manly enough? Not enough facial hair, maybe? I am hard-pressed to find an issue that men in STEM face that is similar in magnitude and scope as this one example illustrates.

 

 

Re: Lyanna

Awesome link.

 

[litechick]

The problems that tend to arise in STEM, specifically in Engineering and Physics within the private sector are not just the irritating comments.

That's fantastic.  We have progressed so that I can be dismissed by men and women!  Did you honestly think that the sum total of my experience with chauvinism was in cheap micro-aggressions?  Go ahead and play the Special Snowflake Card.  Clearly I can't understand the full scope of your travails.

Terra, if you are going to disagree with me I would rather you respond to this:

I want a gender-blind workplace and in my mind the only way to get that is to behave as if the workplace is gender-blind.

Or This:

The important thing to remember is that those who are prejudiced against you don't know that. 

If you don't disagree with those statements there is nothing really to talk about.

[TerraPrime]

Re: litechick

I want a gender-blind workplace and in my mind the only way to get that is to behave as if the workplace is gender-blind.

I don't want a gender-blind workplace. I want a workplace where we are aware of the gender biases that exist in human nature and then work to alleviate those imbalances. I start with the premise that gender biases, like racial biases, will never cease to exist among groups of humans. Therefore, aiming for a gender-blind workplace is simply erasing the trials that women and non-traditional gender individuals face, thus ending up reinforcing a sexist situation. The quest for a gender-blind workplace is itself, despite the noble intention, a path leading back to the undesirable outcome. 

 

The important thing to remember is that those who are prejudiced against you don't know that.

This is true for some, but not all, people who hold biases. Plenty of people with gender and racial biases feel justified in their biases. Look at, for instance, people who oppose allowing women soldiers to serve in as fighter pilots or other positions, citing their lack of physical strength as a reason. You can also find other examples where women are excluded from fields based on "facts" like women just can't handle the G-force in formula 1 racing, etc. In these cases, the people are openly sexist, because they feel that their sexism is justified.

I will agree that in most cases, people who make decisions based on biases not because they are moustach-twirling villains aiming to punish women. In most cases, these biases are unexamined or unnoticed. The manager who gave the promotion to the male associate instead of the female one because the manager thinks that the man, as the breadwinner of a family, can use the raise more, is not out to disadvantage the female employee per se. It's a cultural assumption that the manager harbors. In those cases, I think your description is correct. In the end, though, whether intended or not, the outcome is the same.

[Lily Valley]

That's fantastic.  We have progressed so that I can be dismissed by men and women!  Did you honestly think that the sum total of my experience with chauvinism was in cheap micro-aggressions?  Go ahead and play the Special Snowflake Card.  Clearly I can't understand the full scope of your travails.

Ouch.  I had that coming.

litechick, it was not my intention to be dismissive.   On a re-read it certainly came across that way.  I'm really sorry.

I realize that all of this bullshit is not specific to STEM. It's my background and the one I'm preparing my students for.  I genuinely didn't mean to dismiss your entire career and all of your other experiences, but that's exactly what I did.  Again, I'm sorry.  I was thinking out loud and didn't realize how rude I was. 

I really do appreciate your feedback.  

My friend essentially agrees with you on how she wants to tailor her talk and also on the type of work environment that she'd prefer.  I took everyone's comments back to her on Friday night.

She's decided to tailor her talk so that most of it is about the jobs she has held with the last 10-15 minutes on practical matters like salary negotiation, interviewing and also work environment.  She will speak for a few minutes on the types of problems that can come up and on how to handle them.  One thing she and I both agree on is that they need to be warned.  I expect that several of my students may approach her privately after the Q & A session and she'll tackle those questions as they come up.

Her main objection to talking about the intense sexism in STEM is not that it exists, it's that she's sick of dealing with it.  She didn't go into her field to be some sort of trailblazer and yet that's what she's had to do just to be able to keep working.  

Both of us have been working since we were 14 and our post-college jobs were the worst we have ever had.  

For me, it was bad enough for that I switched fields and I am not alone in that decision.  This sucks.  Like everyone else who goes into STEM, I have an absolute passion for the technical work and I miss the lab every single day.  Thing is, I wasn't getting those assignments anyway.  I kept getting shoved into quality control or project management.  Both are fine fields, but they're dead boring to me and a complete waste of my skill set.  To say this was disappointing is an understatement.  I see the same passion in my students.  I genuinely think I'd be doing them a disservice to let them walk out into the workforce as ill-prepared to fight for what they want as I was.  In hindsight I can see several places where I might have been able to save my own career if I hadn't been blind-sided.  I don't know women in any other field where the workplace is systemically bad enough that such large numbers choose to give up their work rather than stay.  From this I've drawn the conclusion that the STEM field is especially toxic.  Is this navel gazing?  You betcha.  

When I interviewed for my current position I interviewed my boss and my colleagues as heavily as they reviewed my credentials. I wound up winning the lottery.   Conversely, the woman who is coming in to speak has changed jobs and fields 4 or 5 times in order to get a position that is merely tolerable.  

My point here being that it was too hard for me.  It was too hard for me and I'm pretty tough.  My background is such that a college education is never something I questioned and neither was a decent career.  I still wasn't able to stand up for myself when I should have.  My students are not coming from this place and many of them aren't even sure if they're going to make it through the curriculum.  I can already see several of my best students doubting their own competence.  They're certainly going to doubt it even more if I run over them the same way that I ran over you.

  I can't promise you that in our discourse I'm not going to piss you off.  I can promise you that I am listening, even when I respond like a complete jackass.

Term doesn't start up again until mid-january.  If anyone else has ideas for speakers, reading material or other resources for this group please let me know.  I'm lucky enough to have a platform, a captive audience and a directive to focus on "workforce development".  The awesome thing about that last directive is that it covers almost everything under the sun and there's a little money for it.

Thanks again everyone.

Terra, that story is just gross.    

[litechick]

Wow Lilly.  Thank you for that thoughtful post.  Apology accepted, don't give it another thought.  I do understand where you are coming from.  I attended an engineering school and was enrolled in Electrical Engineering even though I never intended to actually be an engineer.

I wanted to be in rock and roll lighting.  The only time I ever managed to get on a tour bus was not rock, it was a nice family friendly Christmas show.  The rest of the crew were not a bunch of assholes, they were nice mid-western boys and they hated my guts.  I wasn't the right person to break that barrier.  Being the first woman on that particular tour bus does nothing to mitigate the loss of the goal.  In that regard, I think of Shannon Faulkner a lot.

She didn't go into her field to be some sort of trailblazer and yet that's what she's had to do just to be able to keep working.  

Amen to that.

I also think of Chris Rock. 

Terra, that's very interesting.  You seem to be saying that a gender blind workplace is a pipe dream so one should not bother to pursue it.  Different methods to achieve a common goal, I won't bother arguing with you.

Plenty of people with gender and racial biases feel justified in their biases.

Well, yeah--that's what I mean when I say "They think they are responding to you purely on the data and any suggestion that they are prejudiced will elicit the defensive response. "  That counts as 'they don't know they are prejudiced.'  Believe me, the next woman who rode on that tour bus was treated much better because the nice, mid-western boys didn't like to see themselves as prejudiced and the only refuge from that label was to claim it wasn't women, it was Me they objected to.  She was younger, prettier and kept her head down/mouth shut in a way that I could not.

We all chip away at the wall in our own fashion and to our own abilities/skills/talents.  Someday it won't matter any more.  In the meantime we can only do our best and submit gracefully to defeat.

 

[maarsen]

As a man I would like to add my little bit to this topic. First of all I am a tradesperson working in a mostly male environment. My closest friend (female), is also a tradesperson which is how we met. I have seen her taking all kinds of abuse from supervisors and co-workers just because of her sex, and it isn't just men doing it. She is though, the strongest person I have ever met, mentally and emotionally. I wish there was more I could do to support her beyond what I am doing now.

[Arkhangel]

Can I momentarily interrupt this interesting discussion to share this annoying article, which begins "How do you convey the concept of “femininity” into an interior space?" and ends with three white men declaring that their bar is a sexy Japanese woman because “It’s something really tactile. You basically want to hold onto the pieces [of furniture].”

Please join with me for approximately twelve seconds of minor irritation.

Aaaand back to the main topic

[Wise Fool]

So on one hand, I'm engaging on Facebook with a guy who thinks feminism is about man-hating (it's a "core tenet", apparently). I've been trying to correct him but now he's saying I'm just being mean to him, too. Just like all those women he's complaining about. A friend of his is asking why we need feminism.

On the other hand, on Facebook I found out about Purvi Patel being sentenced to TWENTY YEARS for a miscarriage.

Shit's fucked, yo.

 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

So on one hand, I'm engaging on Facebook with a guy who thinks feminism is about man-hating (it's a "core tenet", apparently). I've been trying to correct him but now he's saying I'm just being mean to him, too. Just like all those women he's complaining about. A friend of his is asking why we need feminism.

On the other hand, on Facebook I found out about Purvi Patel being sentenced to TWENTY YEARS for a miscarriage.

Shit's fucked, yo.

 

This is part of the problem in trying to have a conversation about contentious social issues like this. Both sides are wedded to their version of the facts and speak as if those facts are established and uncontroverted. For example, the claim that Purvi Patel simply had a miscarriage is not an uncontroverted fact. In reality, one of the big issues in the case is whether or not her baby was born alive. There were disputes about the age of the fetus and its viability and contested medical evidence about whether the baby was breathing after it was born - before it was placed into a dumpster and abandoned by Patel. Medical experts on both sides of this issue were vetted by the Court and presented to the jury, which apparently concluded that there was enough evidence to conclude the fetus was born alive, and therefore that she left a living baby in a dumpster to die. 

There's obviously a lot about this case that can be argued - the feticide law in general; the nature and credibility of the State's medical evidence; etc. But simply glossing over these factual disputes to present the issue as you wish it actually were helps nobody, because all you end up doing is talking past the other side who is wedded to a different version of the facts. 

[TerraPrime]

[mod hat]

Please keep your comments to the topic, not the other users.

[/mod hat]

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I guess at least one person likes me! 

[Lyanna Stark]

 

Lyanna,

Research labs and academia are much better than the private sector.  This is what makes entering the work force such a shock.

The worst I had to deal with in research was a senior manager coming in to look at my lab and saying something stupid every six months.  My boss would just roll his eyes and then we'd get on with the work.  The funniest was when he told me to sweep the lab.  I asked him to loan me the broom he used to sweep his office.  Turns out we had a maintenance staff.

Haha ouch. It probably varies quite a lot within private sector too. Given a few strange and disconcerting experiences, on the whole I think my time in IT has been positive. During the period of my having a project manager who was outright sexist, my male co-workers would on the sly devise strategies to make me avoid direct contact with him. It probably helped that they deeply loathed the man as well, but still. I think that has instilled in me a strong sense of how men can be feminists and allies as well, and how important it is to see what is going on. My colleagues took note, and took the steps they could to simply shield me from the sexist arsehole. All my reports and documents ended up being funneled to him through them (and once the arsehole was booted out of the project, I got promoted alongside them, too  )

Nowadays I mostly notice it because some people (all men) take offence at what they perceive as my "hostile tone", i.e. I don't apologise for sending them pretty decisive instructions on technical issues, and they clearly don't like being told.

It seems some industries are still in the "naked bikini babes wall calendar" stages tho.

 

 

Arkhangel,

That is indeed a very annoying article. Just lots of blah blah on top of other blah blah with a nice little sexist cherry on top.

[Lyanna Stark]

Mandy asked me to write something about internalised sexism, but due to work and the board not being cooperative, it never really happened. Lately, we've had a couple of commentaries made by famous feminists and others highlighting why interalised sexism can be so nasty and cause people to say some really strange things, sometimes.

First, some background on the functions of being the Second Sex, i.e. of being secondary to men. From de Beauviour, 1949:

 

Quote

Now, woman has always been man’s dependant, if not his slave; the two sexes have never shared the world in equality. And even today woman is heavily handicapped, though her situation is beginning to change. Almost nowhere is her legal status the same as man’s, and frequently it is much to her disadvantage. Even when her rights are legally recognised in the abstract, long-standing custom prevents their full expression in the mores. In the economic sphere men and women can almost be said to make up two castes; other things being equal, the former hold the better jobs, get higher wages, and have more opportunity for success than their new competitors. In industry and politics men have a great many more positions and they monopolise the most important posts. In addition to all this, they enjoy a traditional prestige that the education of children tends in every way to support, for the present enshrines the past – and in the past all history has been made by men. At the present time, when women are beginning to take part in the affairs of the world, it is still a world that belongs to men – they have no doubt of it at all and women have scarcely any. To decline to be the Other, to refuse to be a party to the deal – this would be for women to renounce all the advantages conferred upon them by their alliance with the superior caste. Man-the-sovereign will provide woman-the-liege with material protection and will undertake the moral justification of her existence; thus she can evade at once both economic risk and the metaphysical risk of a liberty in which ends and aims must be contrived without assistance. Indeed, along with the ethical urge of each individual to affirm his subjective existence, there is also the temptation to forgo liberty and become a thing. This is an inauspicious road, for he who takes it – passive, lost, ruined – becomes henceforth the creature of another’s will, frustrated in his transcendence and deprived of every value. But it is an easy road; on it one avoids the strain involved in undertaking an authentic existence. When man makes of woman the Other, he may, then, expect to manifest deep-seated tendencies towards complicity. Thus, woman may fail to lay claim to the status of subject because she lacks definite resources, because she feels the necessary bond that ties her to man regardless of reciprocity, and because she is often very well pleased with her role as the Other.

The first part, I think, of internalised sexism starts with that we, women, accept our subordination. There are advantages to it, as de Beauvoir here points out, if you stick to your assigned role (alliance with the superior caste) and not outside of it. You'll see this read its ugly head when women get eachother down for not being pretty enough, or telling other women they are too fat, or not feminine enough, etc. It's criticism from within an accepted system where women take on the team colours of their "superior caste". A lot of criticism of feminism by women are rooted in this allying oneself with the superior caste. Of course, then feminism is threatening, because it takes aim at tearing down that superior caste, and that alliance, and the priviliges that come with it.

Another example of internalised sexism is how women, even clever, exceptional women, accept that men are the superior caste, and instead of wanting to tear that down, they want to join it, as "one of the boys" or the "unique snowflake" woman. So different from all the other women she could almost be a man.

Example from de Beauviour:

Quote

Some years ago a well-known woman writer refused to permit her portrait to appear in a series of photographs especially devoted to women writers; she wished to be counted among the men. But in order to gain this privilege she made use of her husband’s influence! Women who assert that they are men lay claim none the less to masculine consideration and respect.

This is a pretty common phenomenon and pops up in various context in our society, from the unique snowflake action heroines in various games, movies and books, to female politicians being the "only one" in the field of men and not supporting other women, to women laughing at misogynist jokes in order to be accepted as "one of the boys". In short, it centres around the valuing of traditionally masculine ideas and traits, while devaluing that which is seen as feminine. Men and men's interests are more valuable than women and women's interests. They are more profound and less worthy of mockery, even if there is little inherent value in things like flyfishing vs knitting.

It is also around here, I think, where we start finding the mockery based on equating something with women or femininity. "You throw like a girl", "Don't be a pussy" (found in a Kate Daniels novel), "He cried like a little girl". These are all very common and well known. Women who use these types of expressions, even if subconsciously, are re-affirming themselves as allied to the "superior caste". It's also a pretty sad case of self-loathing, because a lot of the time women engaging in this cannot see that by putting other women down, they are doing the same thing to themselves. Some women deny that they belong to the group "women", because they are simply so unique they don't fit there, but as I think my examples and explanations have shown, they are simply engaging in internalised sexism and are loathe to part from the priviliges they do enjoy in this role.

From here, it becomes a natural progression to move on to what happens if you elevate men and the masculine while at the same time devaluing women, women's interests and femininity.

 

Fear of the feminine:

Mostly I am just going to let this stand on its own, because it needs no further commentary. From Julia Serano, Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity

Quote

“Male pride is not really about pride. It's about fear - the fear of being seen as feminine. And that's why "girl stuff" is so dangerous. And as long as most men remain deathly afraid of it, they'll continue to take it out on the rest of us.”
 

Quote

“In a world where masculinity is respected and femininity is regularly dismissed, it takes an enormous amount of strength and confidence for any person, whether female- or male-bodied, to embrace their feminine self.”

Quote

“Hey girls, did you hear the news? It's just been scientifically proven that barrettes are dangerous! So are bracelets and bric-a-brac. It's a fact. And don't be fooled by thick-necked macho men who pretend that "girl stuff" is boring or frivolous, because that's just an act. Because as soon as you ask that guy to hold your purse for a minute, he will start to squirm, as if your handbag were full of worms, as he holds it as far away from his rugged body as possible. Because "girl stuff" is made with the gender equivalent of Kryptonite!”

Quote

“The greatest barrier preventing us from fully challenging sexism is the pervasive antifeminine sentiment that runs wild in both the straight and queer communities, targeting people of all genders and sexualities. The only realistic way to address this issue is to work toward empowering femininity itself. We must rightly recognize that feminine expression is strong, daring, and brave - that it is powerful - and not in an enchanting, enticing, or supernatural sort of way, but in a tangible, practical way that facilitates openness, creativity, and honest expression. We must move beyond seeing femininity as helpless and dependent, or merely as masculinity's sidekick, and instead acknowledge that feminine expression exists of its own accord and brings its own rewards to those who naturally gravitate toward it. By embracing femininity, feminism will finally be able to reach out to the vast majority of feminine women who have felt alienated by the movement in the past.”

We can see here that based on the first acceptance of the "alliance with the superior caste" and the devaluing of women and the feminine, that means there is a fear of being seen as feminine, because it is seen as poorer, more artificial and worth less.

 

Becoming aware of oppression turns you into a neutral right? No.

Yet at the same time, we all engage in internalised sexism. All the time, probably every day, we engage in it, most of the time unaware of it.

While I don't agree with everything in this article, it helps illustrate the issue.

Quote

There’s always a lot of talk about how feminism means choice. The argument is that even if a woman is participating in what is deemed to be a patriarchal or oppressive behavior, they are making their own choice — therefore, that choice is a feminist act.

Of course, not everything women do are feminist acts. We don't exist in a vacuum and our choices are coloured by our surroundings, our upbringing, our culture etc. In fact, *a lot of stuff* we do is learnt behaviour, stuff we didn't know when we were born (by the way, this is sorta  approaching what academics like Judith Butler is talking about when she is waffling on about "performing gender". We do lots of stuff in our daily lives that reinforces and repeats our gender. In a way, we keep on creating our gender, by our actions and our choices.)

Making a conscious choice to stop doing these things carry social consequences.

A lot of people who claim they are not feminists, or claim feminism is useless, or that we are already equal fit into the category of seeing themselves as neutrums, as non entities, or as totally without personal bias. Their position is the One and Only True neutral position in the Entire Universe (and everyone who can't see that is Wrong). Everyone has a bias, or a starting position that is not neutral. We all have learnt behaviours we may have to face.

As you can tell, these things all fit together like pieces in a puzzle. One leads to the other which leads to the next, which leads back to the beginning.

[litechick]

The thing about internalized sexism is that it pertains to both men and women.  It should be a point of agreement in the effort to shed its effects, but it's not.

I have seen women acting in a completely superficial manner defended by feminists because they 'were nurtured in a sexist society which taught them to value such things.'  Well, yeah.  The men were nurtured in the same environment.  If you are going to support the woman you must also support the man.  (that probably doesn't make sense.)

I get along in the world by acknowledging that the men who treat me like a strange new species with boobs and the ability to engage in rational problem solving as (what?) sexually challenged.  They are not bad people.  They have been nurtured in a sexist society and have no experience of women being equal professionals.

It's like a black quarterback in football.  Some people will over-praise, some will undermine, some will take you at face value.  Being a woman in a male-dominated space means being an educator.  We shouldn't have to be educators but that's just the way it is for some time to come.

Without spamming the thread with personal anecdotes* I can only say that sexist people of all genders are not necessarily bad people.  We all have to learn. Learning through personal experience is much more effective than learning by rote.  That's why we need more women in STEM, etc.  I refer you to my signature by Booker T Washington.

 

*Actually, I think a thread devoted to concrete examples of people breaking barriers and stereotypes would be very beneficial to us as a community but that is not favored here because it is 'anecdotal evidence.' 

[ElizabethB.]

"When a woman reaches ****** with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression." -- Sheila Jeffrys"

 

What is so awful it can not not be written? What  do the stars mean? 

That's from a feminist(?) site I think. 

experienceproject.com

[karaddin]

Feminism is not a monolith and I don't think there are many on here who would see things the same way as that woman. I can't tell you what she's thinking and I don't want to.