Because We Are Women

[skdadl]

Yeah. We're not equal. No way we're equal.

If we're sweet and proper, we're tolerated.

[Berlynn]

And I am so friggin' tired of being sweet and proper!   :evil:

[brebis noire]

Well, men in all cultures (not all men, no, but most) treat women as the Other, as something deficient and othered, as joss writes.

When you say, "treat women as chattel," you make it easier for people to single out cultures that are still agriculturally based (or very poor), because that is the metaphor they have for those who are othered -- servants or animals.

True, it does make it easy. But on the other hand, when we plunge into how it is for women in other countries, it can potentially make it easier to see how things are wrong here too. It's harder to see, but when you're on the lookout, it's certainly easier. And I think we do a very good job of othering people here too, on the basis of education and/or wealth.

The problem here, and now, is (some) men treating women as the Other, and not even realising they are doing it. And some women too, of course, doing it to themselves and others. The even bigger problem is when they are organized enough to have influence on laws and such.

I admit that I don't feel it as much here in Quebec - there is just no way that the Cons in their current incarnation will have sway with people, and much of it is due to that traditionalisation of women's roles that has so totally gone out of the window here. Better secularisation has helped, enormously, to work that change in practical and meaningful ways.

[Berlynn]

The problem here, and now, is (some) men treating women as the Other, and not even realising they are doing it. And some women too, of course, doing it to themselves and others. The even bigger problem is when they are organized enough to have influence on laws and such.

Seems to me that ProgBlogs is a good example of what you describe.

[Toedancer]

The even bigger problem is when they are organized enough to have influence on laws and such.

Another problem in advancing women's true equality means not allowing bogus Can. announcements such as the Cons Family Violence Conference, getting any further without women's groups at the table.  Sheesh the name in and of itself is Family, serves to disgender who is committing the majority of the violence and more importantly to make sure women aren't at the table as if Women Don't Own the Issue, only the guv does. That makes me nuts. Same with the Victims Bill Rights, there is already victims compensation (well actually good luck on that, years and years of shite to go thru) so why isn't there a Women's Bill Rights when it comes to violence, globally. Afterall it is a global Epidemic. It needs to be politicized by women. We're stuck in a mode of so many burned out service providers (mostly women) when we need to get back out demonstrating in front of the M of Health/welfare and housing offices, Queen's Park, Parliament etc. I don't trust law and order when it comes to women, especially when I know those in positions of power to make the laws haven't done a very good job of it so far. The co-optation of owning our issues means no one wants us to have the ability to usurp the status quo.

The public accepts violence against women and children, that in and of itself is unjust. The vulnerability of women is partly maintained by guv's, part of the social order to keep us in our places; no body on their own gets into a position to attack and murder women/children here and globally, especially in war zones, without some collusion. When guv's legislate policy like welfare and enforced poverty that treats women as unworthy of equality, it automatically accepts inequality and then sexism which includes violence which then reinforces 'status quo'.

Joya is saying the things that ' no one wants to hear ' which is the truth. Good gawd forget subtlety, it's time for big ugly words that offends Everyone.

[fern hill]

As if one needed further examples, there's this going on at babble , in which skdadl is quoted from this thread.

[Croghan27]

As if one needed further examples, there's this going on at babble , in which skdadl is quoted from this thread.

If you do not mind, I find the people of babble (okay some people) are more into scoring debating points and illustratting someone's failings than conducting a rational discussion wherein both sides that may, just may, learn something.  

Without going futher, if skadadl says it is okay, it is fine by me.  :D

[deBeauxOs]

Wow, some of the posts in that thread are truly obnoxious.  If for one nanosecond had I regrets about leaving babble, that would cure me at once.

[fern hill]

Amen. Sometimes, I feel sorry for Michelle. Sometimes.

[anne cameron]

I admit I was greatly tempted to jump in and second Scout and Reminds take on the nanny-manny lecturing hectoring tone but then I grabbed m'self by the seat of m'pants and shook and said HEY, dipper, there was a reason you flounced away, or have you forgotten?

And no, I haven't forgotten.

Jeeeebus but I am weary of feeling I have to take my cues from Dickens.  "Please, sir, may I have more?"

It happens over at EnMasse a lot, although not as much as it did at first.  Which might mean "we" are winning or it might mean "we" just aren't noticing because it's so usual...

But it sure does underline why it is I cringe every time I encounter what , for me, is an oxymoron. "Feminist man".  We've got some great men post here, but I don't think any of them are feminist men, they might be well on their way to understanding feminism and feminists, and I'm damn glad we have them, but...old scars itch and it only took a brief gawk at Babble via the link in this thread to make them itch and burn like hell.

Yes, the dweeb did come off like a manny-nanny, and he did as good as suggest if we'd all just smarten up and do it his way we might even manage to accomplish...and if others can't or won't see that was what was said then I think that has to be their problem, and Babbles' problem, and not mine.  But I do hope Scout and Remind check in here from time to time to time again because, yeah, you're spot on.

And dammit I might break my grilcott of the fekkin place after all!

[fern hill]

Nah, anne, don't. Let them carry on. As for enmasse, they don't seem to 'do' much feminism, so I'm not surprised there's less of the crap.

[Holly Stick]

Damn, Michelle locked the thread.  Well in case any of them check over here:

Boze, the deconstruction to which I referred was remind's. It's not so much age as experience that counts here.  Some of the people posting here have lived feminism for decades, through the changes in thinking which have produced the present temporary situation.  (I don't include myself). You could learn a lot from those who are, yes, older and more experienced.  

SA, it is not all about you, it is about something you wrote and the assumptions behind what you wrote; at least two things, the assumption that feminists and other groups have not worked together on sex education, etc., showing lack of knowledge of the history of the movements; and your assumption that you can sit back and tell other people how they ought to carry on.

[fern hill]

Ageism and feminism. Calling ageism on old borads who claim to know a thing or two.  :roll:

[Holly Stick]

Well, I kind of expected that reaction to what I wrote, stressing age.  I grew up with lots of older relatives and generally found them worth listening to, without necessarily having to agree with them.

[TooMuch]

Frankly, I am angry, sad, disillusioned, thankful--for a variety of reasons--and kicking myself in the ass, all at the same time, and I had to remind myself that this was just too much to tolerate any longer.

Semantics, a wonderful feminist mentor of mine, told me in order to understand the world around you, you must understand semantics.

She taught the semantics of this age, the preceding ones, and especially the semantics of men as they control the world, and thus wrongly your fate, needed to be understood and then addressed from that position.

It seems sometimes, those who do not understand what people are semantically saying are actually perceiving/thinking on the surface, and they do not YET realize the undertow will kill you, or kill your spirit. They pass on the entrenched societal control mechanisms of women without giving any thought to really what they just said, nor to what it implies.

The wilful, and the unconscious, linguistic patriarchal control mechanisms are at the foundation of the continued disparity between genders, and affords a cultured environment where violence against women still occurs, either verbally or physically.

This is one of those times where experience may perhaps give the epiphany the hard way, unfortunately I have seen too many people get so disillusioned, not knowing why, and they surrender to inequality, as it is easier. Falling to see it is only easier at the time.

Having said that, thank you alllllll for the support and for the salient clarification that was given. If it fell upon deaf ears today, perhaps it will be heard at another time.