Feminism and a world designed for men

[ViolentPanda]

I's really irritating to be told 'it's not gender/race, it's class' and expected to hold someone's coat whilst fuck all changes. Unless there is increased representation of women and BME people in positions of power, nothing will change if the opposite were true we'd not be having this conversation now. I am not saying that no changes have occurred, but not fast enough and with all the best will in the world the demographics and dynamics need to change otherwise the same structures are perpetuated.

It's class AND/OR sex AND/OR race etc. As you say, demography and the associated dynamics - and politics - need to accommodate the cross-cutting nature of the shared oppressions and of the group-specific ones, otherwise they're valueless to all - except, of course, those who benefit from current power-relations.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I disagree. I don't think it needs considering. I think more women should be in positions of power and I think they should be visible. The oppression of wc women is a strawman (or woman heh heh. Bloody hell it's everywhere!). It badly needs to be addressed but there is no point worrying about the gender of the people doing the oppressing.

The gender? Isn't gender a set of not-very-helpful stereotypes forced on people by patriarchy?

 

[Manter]

Longish skirt, with stockings and no knickers used to work for me when I was younger and not on a period. Made it possible to piss into those trough urinals in the mens loos too, but that was in women-only dyke clubs with no men about. Didn't seem to be a popular choice clothing choice with any other women I knew.

Short of carrying a she-wee thingy about - women will always have to remove some clothing to piss/deal with periods.

Still not easy though. The dribble bit at the end goes down your leg

 

[ViolentPanda]

Still not easy though. The dribble bit at the end goes down your leg

Hah, Greebo had the same complaint! She was convinced it had been designed by a bloke, probably a virgin with only a book-learning knowledge of female genitals.
I miss her little rants.

 

[8ball]

The gender? Isn't gender a set of not-very-helpful stereotypes forced on people by patriarchy?

Gender in the sense of differential expectations that people with differently-sexed bodies should behave in particular ways, you mean?

Just clarifying because sometimes we confuse each other on these threads by using words a little differently to each other.

 

[Gramsci]

The "more women in positions of power" or "more women MPs, more women in the boardroom" school of thought addresses nothing about what they do when they get there. If those women simply shore up systems of oppression and exploitation of working class women then it's pointless.

My personal experience as someone whose always done working class jobs is that the gender or race of the person who owns the company or is in managerial role makes no difference.

Some one can get on with some are awful.

Its a myth that getting more women into positions into the boardroom or running business will make a difference.

I've worked in women owned companies and men owned companies. When the chips are down male and female bosses behave in the same way.

 

[mango5]

Yeh. You seem to be taking issue with something I have observed rather than proposed, ignoring my 'adequate facilities should be provided for all'. Adequate for women involves, as you say, access to sanitary facilities, to sufficient cubicles to accommodate users' needs, etc etc. It involves placing women at the front of the design process at an early stage of the planning process, whereas at the moment architects, mostly men, all too often impose their views on clients and provide designs which don't meet how buildings actually work or what people actually need. Where there are queues it *could* suggest people are taking too long. But it would indicate to me rather there are likely to be too few cubicles or basins or soap dispensers or hand driers, or problems with provision of sanitary facilities - that there's a design flaw in the facility than in the users. Having seen the same flaws in design in gents toilets in buildings both here and abroad I wouldn't be in the slightest surprised there were extra faults in the ladies.

Surely you don't need direct responses to your banal observations, diagnosis and insights about the hugely damaging (for women) impact of a world designed for men that might in fact turn out to be somewhat flawed for everyone (men) .
The thing that's missing from your posts is any sense of anger or urgency. Women have no choice but to take these things deeply personally.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Gender in the sense of differential expectations that people with differently-sexed bodies should behave in particular ways, you mean?

Just clarifying because sometimes we confuse each other on these threads by using words a little differently to each other.

Yep, differential expectations that are pretty stereotyped STILL.

 

[mango5]

Its a myth that getting more women into positions into the boardroom or running business will make that much difference.

Why must this be a myth? We're not talking about sprinkling a few more women that men can tolerate around the boardroom.

We can't really test the effects of equal representation until 51% of powerful positions are occupied by women in a systemic and sustained way, with the freedom to fuck things up just as much as the guy next door used to.

 

[ViolentPanda]

My personal experience as someone whose always done working class jobs is that the gender or race of the person who owns the company or is in managerial role makes no difference.

The SEX or race, do you mean, given that "gender" is a social construction that places people in roles, whereas sex is an immutable biological material reality?

Its a myth that getting more women into positions into the boardroom or running business will make that much difference.

I've worked in women owned companies and men owned companies. When the chips are down male and female bosses behave in the same way.

I don't entirely agree. A few bosses, usually ones who've worked their way up from the bottom, are genuinely socialistic, but MOST aren't, not least because they way they've been "educated" to be bosses (this includes a majority of MBAs, in my experience) is based around seeing workers as objects - as assets to be "sweated", and disposed of, rather than seeing them as people who bring valuable experience to the workplace. A good example of this view of workers as objects is the rankness of the current "apprenticeship" system. Rather than teaching someone a trade with which they can form their own business/be an independent trader, young people are being subjected to cookie-cutter training that produces drones to work for established businesses. It's all about feeding capitalism, and until that approach ends, no-one except the bosses will get fair treatment, although the poor treatment men get, will still objectively be better than the poor treatment women get.

 

[Manter]

Hah, Greebo had the same complaint! She was convinced it had been designed by a bloke, probably a virgin with only a book-learning knowledge of female genitals.
I miss her little rants.

Like and don’t like, iyswim. Hugs x

 

[Gramsci]

Why must this be a myth? We're not talking about sprinkling a few more women that men can tolerate around the boardroom.

We can't really test the effects of equal representation until 51% of powerful positions are occupied by women in a systemic and sustained way, with the freedom to fuck things up just as much as the guy next door used to.

I was basing this on my personal experience.

I have actually worked in women owned business.

I didn't find their managerial style or way they dealt with workforce any more or less exploitative than the a male owned business.

So, basing this on my personal experience and not just theory I would say its a myth.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Why must this be a myth? We're not talking about sprinkling a few more women that men can tolerate around the boardroom.

We can't really test the effects of equal representation until 51% of powerful positions are occupied by women in a systemic and sustained way, with the freedom to fuck things up just as much as the guy next door used to.

Absolutely. Of course, under patriarchy, that's unlikely to happen any time soon. Look at the misogynistic blowback that's taking place in many states where equality is legislated, but not a reality! The US is rank with it, as is Australia, most of Europe, most of South and South-east Asia, and let's not even get started on the former Soviet Union! For every gain by feminism, feminists seem to have to put years of effort not only into new gains, but into retaining existing gains.

 

[mango5]

... the poor treatment men get, will still objectively be better than the poor treatment women get.

This simple point seems to be very difficult for some of our putative comrades to grasp.

 

[Manter]

Why must this be a myth? We're not talking about sprinkling a few more women that men can tolerate around the boardroom.

We can't really test the effects of equal representation until 51% of powerful positions are occupied by women in a systemic and sustained way, with the freedom to fuck things up just as much as the guy next door used to.

God I want to see that. Even tried! Not this ‘few women who are men in skirts* and don’t scare us too much’

*By which I mean accept working constructs, norms, patterns, judgements assumptions etc set by men. Not drag queens

 

[ViolentPanda]

Like and don’t like, iyswim. Hugs x

I do see what you mean. Thank you. Saw your lad and TN the other day, asked "what, no sticks?". TN sighed and said "they're in the backpack".

 

[ViolentPanda]

This simple point seems to be very difficult for some of our putative comrades to grasp.

What's utterly weird to me, is that if you substitute "black people" for women, and "white people" for men, those same putative comrades will TOTALLY grasp it. It's almost like there's some kind of self-programming that doesn't allow them to acknowledge material reality.

 

[Manter]

I do see what you mean. Thank you. Saw your lad and TN the other day, asked "what, no sticks?". TN sighed and said "they're in the backpack".

I found a waitrose bag under his bed the other day and wondered what on earth it was.

Sticks

(I do love that half of Brixton as well as far flung places seems to know and be amused by the stick obsession)

 

[ViolentPanda]

God I want to see that. Even tried! Not this ‘few women who are men in skirts* and don’t scare us too much’

*By which I mean accept working constructs, norms, patterns, judgements assumptions etc set by men. Not drag queens

Drag queens in boardrooms would just give most of those former public schoolboys the horn.

 

[Manter]

Drag queens in boardrooms would just give most of those former public schoolboys the horn.

Could make some of my days much more interesting, mind

 

[8115]

I was basing this on my personal experience.

I have actually worked in women owned business.

I didn't find their managerial style or way they dealt with workforce any more or less exploitative than the a male owned business.

So, basing this on my personal experience and not just theory I would say its a myth.

I always thought you were male? If you're male you might not notice the difference. If you're female I'm really sorry. Also you need a tipping point.

 

[Gramsci]

The SEX or race, do you mean, given that "gender" is a social construction that places people in roles, whereas sex is an immutable biological material reality?



I don't entirely agree. A few bosses, usually ones who've worked their way up from the bottom, are genuinely socialistic, but MOST aren't, not least because they way they've been "educated" to be bosses (this includes a majority of MBAs, in my experience) is based around seeing workers as objects - as assets to be "sweated", and disposed of, rather than seeing them as people who bring valuable experience to the workplace. A good example of this view of workers as objects is the rankness of the current "apprenticeship" system. Rather than teaching someone a trade with which they can form their own business/be an independent trader, young people are being subjected to cookie-cutter training that produces drones to work for established businesses. It's all about feeding capitalism, and until that approach ends, no-one except the bosses will get fair treatment, although the poor treatment men get, will still objectively be better than the poor treatment women get.

Sorry a few pages back I mentioned theory and was told personal experience comes first.

I'm talking about personal experience of working for men and women. I have actually worked in women owned business.

So my post was about my personal experience of seeing if their is any difference.

From my position as a worker no.

I've always worked in SMEs.

Actually In my experience people who worked their way up from the bottom ok personally but when the business has problems they will shaft you. That is how capitalism works. Getting 50% women running business isn't going to change that.

This isn't having a go at anyone. Its how the system works.

 

[mango5]

I was basing this on my personal experience.

I have actually worked in women owned business.

I didn't find their managerial style or way they dealt with workforce any more or less exploitative than the a male owned business.

So, basing this on my personal experience and not just theory I would say its a myth.

I'll bet that had those women been in the company of loads of other senior women then at least some people would have noticed a difference in the workplace. Possibly even 51% of those people.

But don't worry. You can still treat the potential improvement (for women at least) as a fantasy because it's never going to happen because the world is designed for men.

ETA I've just realised that some male posters still haven't twigged that this thread is about addressing problems of patriarchy over problems of capitalism

 

[Gramsci]

I'll bet that had those women been in the company of loads of other senior women then at least some people would have noticed a difference in the workplace. Possibly even 51% of those people.

But don't worry. You can still treat the potential improvement (for women at least) as a fantasy because it's never going to happen because the world is designed for men.

What I'm saying is that under a Capitalist system a boss / manager whether male or female , when the chips are down , will need to be exploitative.

I'm talking from personal experience here. I remember female co worker of mine being really critical of our female boss.

What I'm taking issue with is the argument that if get more women running business or in boardrooms that will make a big difference.

It would make for more equality in the boardroom or business.

Which is a step forward but it won't mean less exploitation for men and women in the working class.

And I am basing this on personal experience not just theory.

 

[trashpony]

You’re talking about capitalism under patriarchy though. If we ditch patriarchy, what happens to capitalism?

 

[Poot]

Eta ^^^ what trashpony says.

 

[mango5]

This really isn't about women bosses it's about equal gender balance from bottom to top.
But your specific lived experience of women bosses says any possible benefit of a gender balanced workplaces is theoretical and mythical. Not real.

 

[8ball]

If we ditch patriarchy, what happens to capitalism?

I'm going to suggest the markets may take some persuading.

 

[Pickman's model]

Surely you don't need direct responses to your banal observations, diagnosis and insights about the hugely damaging (for women) impact of a world designed for men that might in fact turn out to be somewhat flawed for everyone (men) .
The thing that's missing from your posts is any sense of anger or urgency. Women have no choice but to take these things deeply personally.

When recently where I work proposed major changes to the working environment including enlarging the toilets in the library I sent some suggestions in about that, including some of the points that have been made on the thread. So I've tried to make a difference about this in the real world: only to find out it's not a priority and won't receive funding. While I'd agree with you that engaging staff in changes to the design of their workplace shouldn't be controversial strangely architects don't like it. How have you fared trying to improve the facilities where you work?

 

[Gramsci]

You’re talking about capitalism under patriarchy though. If we ditch patriarchy, what happens to capitalism?

It could still continue. I don't think patriarchy is essential for capitalism.