Feminism - where are the threads?

[kabbes]

^^ the above is Butler’s route into performativity within feminism, of course. By performing the roles allotted by society to women, a woman interpellates those roles and thus becomes them.

 

[Edie]

I also have contradictory feelings about those years. My preference would have been to work part-time but finances didn't allow it. So I went back to work full-time after my statutory 3 months of maternity leave. At that time, feminism hadn't yet visited the ElizabethofYork household, so as well as working full-time, I also did all the domestic stuff and all the after-work childcare including getting up two or three times every night.

It was a torrid time. I remember sitting in my front room one night with a crying baby, thinking about work the next day, and wondering why the fuck I ever wanted children.

Thanks for saying all that, I know I for one definitely relate. I remember that horrid gut wrenching pressure of trying to juggle. But isn’t that one of the things we need to be discussing as women?! Why are we not asking for a world where our feelings about needing to be there for our kids are accommodated not penalised like trashpony ’s experience.

 

[Edie]

Just a little more on interpellation to - hopefully - demystify the term a little.

An example of how interpellation might function in the discussion here is looking at the role of advertising. (Judith Williamson's Decoding Advertisements is a great book on this, if dated)

Obviously advertising's primary function is to sell us stuff.

...but equally obviously the vast majority of commodities aren't sold/bought merely on a utilitarian basis (most stuff functions as well as most other simialr stuff in this regard).

So, the problem for advertising is how to get us to "choose" their product over other over comparable products. Cars, banks and fragrances are typical examples. They portray an idealised image of what they intend the customer to identify with (or to aspire to identify with) and through the act of consumption we can then identify as that idealised image (literally sometimes, "I'm more of Mac user personally..."

Of course, everybody doesn't buy everything, and wouldn't even if they could afford to. So, that moment of i"dentification with" that allows for the transformation into "identification as" is where I would locate interpellation as occuring in this secnario.

This only works if we have structures of socially understood meaning that we can use to read these idealised images, and the advertisers can use to write these idealised images. This where semiotics (to use another bit of jargon) comes in. There is a language of signs and signifiers that we are immersed in from birth, all around us, all the time (the "Spectacle" as Debord argued). Look at that "products for fragile masculinity" thread for lots of examples of crude signifiers of masculinity.

This language of signs includes (but is not limited to) the blue/pink binary, male and female roles and archetypes omnipresent in the media. It includes stuff like baby changing facilities being in the womens' toilets, not the mens'. That may be changing now, but we've all grown up with that message. It includes images of domestic labour almost always being carried out by women (and when it is by men, it's presented as "not quite right"), all that everyday sexism stuff too. You'll all have loads more examples I'm sure.

So, yeah, that's interpellation (and beyond) from my pov.

Thanks for explaining that

 

[chilango]

Thanks for saying all that, I know I for one definitely relate. I remember that horrid gut wrenching pressure of trying to juggle. But isn’t that one of the things we need to be discussing as women?! Why are we not asking for a world where our feelings about needing to be there for our kids are accommodated not penalised like trashpony ’s experience.

I think there's a couple of concerns (of mine) with this...

First, that it could easily be manipulated into a return to the more traditional confinement of women to domestic and emotional labour as mothers (and wives).

Secondly, it could be equally easily be simultaneously manipulating the father's role as more distant, less caring etc. and adding to the stigma that men face for "doing women's work".

Just a thought.

I'll shut up again for a bit now, give others a chance.

 

[Edie]

^^ the above is Butler’s route into performativity within feminism, of course. By performing the roles allotted by society to women, a woman interpellates those roles and thus becomes them.

I almost understand this. Can you just say it again in a slightly different way once more? (maybe with an example?)

 

[ElizabethofYork]

I think there's a couple of concerns (of mine) with this...

First, that it could easily be manipulated into a return to the more traditional confinement of women to domestic and emotional labour as mothers (and wives).

Secondly, it could be equally easily be simultaneously manipulating the father's role as more distant, less caring etc. and adding to the stigma that men face for "doing women's work".

Just a thought.

I'll shut up again for a bit now, give others a chance.

I can only talk about my own experience, obviously. Before we had children, my husband and I discussed the fact that I'd have to go back to work full time afterwards, and he agreed that he would take on his share of the childcare and domestic duties. I believed him.

The reality was very different. I think because his own family background was very traditional, with mum staying at home and doing the domestic stuff, and dad going out to work. So he had no role models or any other example. He honestly didn't realise that stuff needed doing. He never thought about who did the cleaning, shopping, cooking - it just sort of "happened". So when he became a father, he didn't seem to understand that HE needed to be doing some of it!

Of course, I asked him time and time again to help. (the dreaded "nagging"!) And he'd help for a while, but then forget again. So I had to ask again. And again. In the end it was easier and more peaceful if I just did it all myself.

He'd come home from work, and sit down and relax. I came home from work and started the domestic and childcare duties. And he didn't understand why I was constantly tired and fed up.

Even now, we don't have children at home, but he thinks of his weekend as relaxing time, whereas I spend my Saturday shopping, cleaning, doing laundry, and all the other boring shit.

 

[kabbes]

I almost understand this. Can you just say it again in a slightly different way once more? (maybe with an example?)

Sure.

Do you get Althauser’s example, first of all? His point was that if there is a crowd and a policeman calls out, 9 times out of 10, it is the criminal the policeman is after that will turn around. This process is more complex than it looks. The policeman is representative of the state and its laws. Any authority he carries that differentiates him from any other human being is because other people recognise this authority. They literally recognise the embodiment of the authority of the state. The criminal turns round because he understands that he is breaking the laws of this state, he recognises that those laws should apply to him too and thus he turns around. But the act of turning around itself cements in his own head the idea that the laws are valid and that the policeman’s authority is valid. The criminal has accepted the laws apply to him and becomes (this is the important bit) subjectified by them. He is subject to the laws (in other words they apply to him) and he is a subject of the law, in the sense that he is subservient to it.

So how does that apply to feminism? Butler’s big play on this was what she called performativity. You absorb from before you have consciousness what it means to be a woman. The “laws of society” regarding womanhood. At some point, there is the equivalent policeman moment — you are in a situation in which you must respond to something. When you do so by performing a role that you have observed as being part of being a woman, you become subject to the applicability of that role to you and you become a subject of womanhood. This is what gives you the subjectivity of being a woman, which is what (I think) Butler would interpret by you saying that you are doing what you feel to be “natural”. It feels natural because you have internalised that role.

 

[Edie]

I can only talk about my own experience, obviously. Before we had children, my husband and I discussed the fact that I'd have to go back to work full time afterwards, and he agreed that he would take on his share of the childcare and domestic duties. I believed him.

The reality was very different. I think because his own family background was very traditional, with mum staying at home and doing the domestic stuff, and dad going out to work. So he had no role models or any other example. He honestly didn't realise that stuff needed doing. He never thought about who did the cleaning, shopping, cooking - it just sort of "happened". So when he became a father, he didn't seem to understand that HE needed to be doing some of it!

Of course, I asked him time and time again to help. (the dreaded "nagging"!) And he'd help for a while, but then forget again. So I had to ask again. And again. In the end it was easier and more peaceful if I just did it all myself.

He'd come home from work, and sit down and relax. I came home from work and started the domestic and childcare duties. And he didn't understand why I was constantly tired and fed up.

Even now, we don't have children at home, but he thinks of his weekend as relaxing time, whereas I spend my Saturday shopping, cleaning, doing laundry, and all the other boring shit.

My husband never did fuck all. And in all my friends and family I don’t know a single man who fully pulls his weight compared to the woman. Maybe it’s just me and all these men do actually want to share the care really and are just lacking the opportunity due to patriarchy

 

[nata33]

sometimes i just wonder that what comes first ? feminism ? or own men ship ?

 

[kabbes]

My husband never did fuck all. And in all my friends and family I don’t know a single man who fully pulls his weight compared to the woman. Maybe it’s just me and all these men do actually want to share the care really and are just lacking the opportunity due to patriarchy

Well, don’t forget that they are also subjectified as men. Men also have allotted roles within the patriarchy, meaning they also interpellate these roles.

These are all dynamic processes, though. People create new culture, they don’t just retread it. Roles change over time as new thinking emerges. Both men and women understand their roles very differently to 100 years ago. But the change isn’t uniform over society and it doesn’t happen at a uniform rate.

 

[Edie]

sometimes i just wonder that what comes first ? feminism ? or own men ship ?

Feminism or what was the second thing? Welcome btw x

 

[Thora]

Thanks for saying all that, I know I for one definitely relate. I remember that horrid gut wrenching pressure of trying to juggle. But isn’t that one of the things we need to be discussing as women?! Why are we not asking for a world where our feelings about needing to be there for our kids are accommodated not penalised like trashpony ’s experience.

I don't want my feelings about needing to be there for my kids to be accommodated so much as more social pressure on men to do domestic labour.

 

[campanula]

I don't want my feelings about needing to be there for my kids to be accommodated so much as more social pressure on men to do domestic labour.

Exactly. I am a but ambivalent about the idea of a career. I have never had one - just half a century of working...as has my partner. This is just something we do (and try to evade). However, we both live in a home with offspring, pets, laundry, shopping etc...and sharing the domestic stuff equitably has as much impact on our sense of fairness, identity but also externally realised value of such work. By caring, cleaning, picking up, wiping mouths and bottoms, mending scratches and drying tears, I think my partner is a better, nicer, kinder person than someone removed from the domestic sphere which occupies 2/3rds of our lives. It sounds a bit wet and wishy-washy because thus stuff has no value (in the eyes of capital) but culturally, emotionally, socially, the role of nurturing is, I believe, as essential and valuable as any team managment in a 'career'.
Better for our offspring too, I think as 2 of them are male (and competent cooks, cleaners and caretakers and would consider themselves, if not exactly feminist, then certainly more aware of the importance of 'women's work' (ugh). Politically engaged as well.

 

[Red Cat]

Thanks for saying all that, I know I for one definitely relate. I remember that horrid gut wrenching pressure of trying to juggle. But isn’t that one of the things we need to be discussing as women?! Why are we not asking for a world where our feelings about needing to be there for our kids are accommodated not penalised like trashpony ’s experience.

I don't think contradictory feelings are just about juggling childcare vs job, i think we have contradictory or conflicted feelings towards our children because they demand so much of us and sometimes we're overwhelmed by that. All that raw feeling when they're babies, and after. I do feel a need to be there for my children, and also a need to escape. It's too much for one person, either men or women, looking after children.

 

[campanula]

It's too much for one person, either men or women, looking after children.

O yes, I agree. It certainly overwhelmed me in a way no amount of (paid) labour has come close to doing. Of course, children were never just cared for by one person (the idealised mother) until comparatively recently. Our private and domestic lives are always mediated by the public life of work, economics, politics...and in an era where work no longer guarantees enough income to allow for a non-working parent, while also fracturing the extended family connections because we are all expected to be continually mobile, the hard, but essential work of raising each generation, has become squeezed into badly fitting compartments.
I take issue with the whole idea of domestic work as undervalued, unrespected rubbish whilst all the plaudits are saved for the successful career achiever. Shit on that, frankly. I want a revolution where childcare, looking after our elderly, caring for the less able, being compassionate and kind is given more consideration, more respect and yes, more financial support. We would see plenty more men (and women) keener on doing this vital work then.

 

[elbows]

Of course, I asked him time and time again to help. (the dreaded "nagging"!) And he'd help for a while, but then forget again. So I had to ask again. And again. In the end it was easier and more peaceful if I just did it all myself.

A huge part of the shit game that is, a tried and tested technique for shirking responsibility. Often accompanied by wanting a medal on the vanishingly rare occasions where a chore is actually performed, and then getting moody when no parade was laid on to celebrate the token gesture. Other variations on the theme include making such a fuss about doing it, or making such a poor job of it, that it doesnt seem worth the hassle to invite them to do it again on a sustained basis. Its a con, although not necessarily one done with conscious intent. One that kids often pick up on if thats the dynamic in their home, and quickly learn to imitate.

 

[elbows]

My husband never did fuck all. And in all my friends and family I don’t know a single man who fully pulls his weight compared to the woman. Maybe it’s just me and all these men do actually want to share the care really and are just lacking the opportunity due to patriarchy

I have a very limited sense of what anybodies nature may be, because where are the opportunities to view such traits, free from the context of what that person experienced, learnt and immitated from others whilst developing?

I dont get the opportunity to study male behaviour that is free from the effects of being taught what level and type of responsibility, pulling their weight and caring for others is to be considered normal, acceptable, good enough, a virtue, justifiable, their fair share, and approved of and reinforced by male peers. Every personal act a triumph to be overvalued and overcelebrated, a reason to reward self with rest and play and feel terribly comfortable and justified in doing so. Whilst the work of others is reduced to a triviality, a series of mundane acts not worthy of commitment from those who would rather celebrate the smell of their own farts and their other great contributions to humanity. The merest momentary self-sacrifice walks like a giant jesus with a cross made of solid lead (a good days work went into the creation of that cross) across the dusty plains of self-aggrandisement and imaginary martyrdom, hunched over in such a way that the more sustained and daily sacrifices of others pass by almost entirely unnoticed.

Likely there are some 'natural' tendencies which cause the game to be played in this way, but the detail is an artifical construct that can be overcome, especially by big changes to experiences in formative years. It might be for example that there is a male tendency towards singlemindedness and a narrow, one-dimensional sense of responsibility that falls far short of extending to every waking hour. In old fashioned terms, the whole 'bread winner' setup was perhaps the most obvious example, featuring attempts to clearly mark out a dull and unfair sense of what was important, how responsibilities were divided up, and clear demarcation of territory. That stuff is also taught and indulged and reinforced and woven into the fabric of things including the economic order, but that doesnt mean it has to be that way or is the real fundamental nature of things.

 

[Edie]

Sure.

Do you get Althauser’s example, first of all? His point was that if there is a crowd and a policeman calls out, 9 times out of 10, it is the criminal the policeman is after that will turn around. This process is more complex than it looks. The policeman is representative of the state and its laws. Any authority he carries that differentiates him from any other human being is because other people recognise this authority. They literally recognise the embodiment of the authority of the state. The criminal turns round because he understands that he is breaking the laws of this state, he recognises that those laws should apply to him too and thus he turns around. But the act of turning around itself cements in his own head the idea that the laws are valid and that the policeman’s authority is valid. The criminal has accepted the laws apply to him and becomes (this is the important bit) subjectified by them. He is subject to the laws (in other words they apply to him) and he is a subject of the law, in the sense that he is subservient to it.

So how does that apply to feminism? Butler’s big play on this was what she called performativity. You absorb from before you have consciousness what it means to be a woman. The “laws of society” regarding womanhood. At some point, there is the equivalent policeman moment — you are in a situation in which you must respond to something. When you do so by performing a role that you have observed as being part of being a woman, you become subject to the applicability of that role to you and you become a subject of womanhood. This is what gives you the subjectivity of being a woman, which is what (I think) Butler would interpret by you saying that you are doing what you feel to be “natural”. It feels natural because you have internalised that role.

Thanks so much for this. I didn’t get Althauser’s example but I do now. I’m still not convinced that interpolation is the whole answer for those feelings though. But I do understand the argument now so thanks.

 

[Clair De Lune]

Sure.

Do you get Althauser’s example, first of all? His point was that if there is a crowd and a policeman calls out, 9 times out of 10, it is the criminal the policeman is after that will turn around. This process is more complex than it looks. The policeman is representative of the state and its laws. Any authority he carries that differentiates him from any other human being is because other people recognise this authority. They literally recognise the embodiment of the authority of the state. The criminal turns round because he understands that he is breaking the laws of this state, he recognises that those laws should apply to him too and thus he turns around. But the act of turning around itself cements in his own head the idea that the laws are valid and that the policeman’s authority is valid. The criminal has accepted the laws apply to him and becomes (this is the important bit) subjectified by them. He is subject to the laws (in other words they apply to him) and he is a subject of the law, in the sense that he is subservient to it.

So how does that apply to feminism? Butler’s big play on this was what she called performativity. You absorb from before you have consciousness what it means to be a woman. The “laws of society” regarding womanhood. At some point, there is the equivalent policeman moment — you are in a situation in which you must respond to something. When you do so by performing a role that you have observed as being part of being a woman, you become subject to the applicability of that role to you and you become a subject of womanhood. This is what gives you the subjectivity of being a woman, which is what (I think) Butler would interpret by you saying that you are doing what you feel to be “natural”. It feels natural because you have internalised that role.

Really good description! Thanks for taking the time

 

[Clair De Lune]

My husband never did fuck all. And in all my friends and family I don’t know a single man who fully pulls his weight compared to the woman. Maybe it’s just me and all these men do actually want to share the care really and are just lacking the opportunity due to patriarchy

My dad (non biological- he took me on cos he loved my mam) already had sons with his ex wife before I was born. He was submerged in traditional roles of being the breadwinner and had very little to do with the bringing up of his sons. When I was born he of course did not think he'd have to help out with my care, cos that was womens work. Now he's not a prick my dad, but that's all he knew. One time my mam went away and left me with him and he had to feed me, brush my hair, dress me and had no choice but to take me to the shops in my push chair. I remember him saying years later how awkward he had felt pushing a pushchair it had been embarrassing and emasculating for him. He explained how its more normal to see guys pushing a pushchair these days but when he was younger it was sure to get you ribbed terribly and stared at...also carrying flowers! Seemed so funny to me when he told me but even just talking about it, he was cringing and bristling. I do remember him cleaning a bit and baking sometimes in his time off. I guess he had to step up as my mam was only just out of her teens and didn't know how to do any of that herself. When I look back with all of my current knowledge I do feel empathy for them and the roles forced upon them. Things have moved on a little since then but nowhere near enough...I think that's why I'm so put off having relationships or living with men...as its one thing doing everything myself when I live alone with my boys but its a real source of sadness and frustration to have a guy there not helping( making more mess, giving me more mouths to feed and shit to organise) and not understanding my frustration and tiredness carrying the burden of everything.
The absolutely least sexy thing a guy can do is nothing to help and then they wonder why its hard for us to wind down of an evening. Its not cos we don't like sex, its cos we're still in cleaner, cook, mam, housewife mode and we're knackered. Fuck that like.

 

[Steel Icarus]

For all the unpleasant aspects of my stepdad he certainly did his share of housework. All the DIY and painting, all the gardening, ironing. Him and mum both cooked though her more than him and they shared the washing and shopping.

My grandpa on the other hand did a lot round the house once he retired, but it was more projects/hobbies; the garden, making wine, bread, and preserves. My grandma still did the cooking, shopping and washing. As far as I know they both tidied, it was a small house they lived in for the last twenty years with zero room for clutter.

 

[weepiper]

My experience of men doing their share of the housework is them choosing to do the bits they enjoy (cooking, garden/car/maintenance stuff) and the bits they don't enjoy (cleaning the toilet, supervising homework, changing nappies, the endless rotational nature of the laundry) happen by magic. NAM obviously. But quite a large proportion of men.

 

[kabbes]

I need to lower my game. I’m letting the side down.

 

[SheilaNaGig]

Really good description! Thanks for taking the time

Yes, thank you kabbes .

Much more helpful than being told “go do the reading yourself”. I’m now actually more likely to go read it up for myself having had your post as a livener.

 

[SheilaNaGig]

I need to lower my game. I’m letting the side down.

But even just making a joke like that just resets the patriarchal pattern.

Can’t you instead make a joke about how crap other men are for not doing it rather than taking the piss out of yourself for doing it?

 

[kabbes]

Fair enough

 

[Athos]

I think a lot of men struggle with their partners doing unrequested and 'nonessential'* stuff around the house, then complaining the men don't do it. They^ think: I'll do my share of the stuff that's necessary e.g. washing the kids' clothes (albeit they often don't, in practice), but, if you want clean windows, then clean them - I'm happy with them being grubby.

*I wonder how much of the perception about what's necessary is really internalised standards of a clean and tidy home that are expected of women, but don't apply to men in the same way. I think there's still an element of the home being the women's domain - both in terms of the freedom to choose decor and the burden of housework - whereas men can leave 'their' areas e.g. sheds, garages, offices, exactly as they want them.

^If I'm honest with myself, I sometimes catch myself thinking this.

 

[kabbes]

I think there is a lot of truth in that in some cases. In other cases, it’s just plain old self-identifying as not being the one that does stuff

 

[chilango]

^ I'm not sure that applies in small flats/terraces where all space is shared and often cramped.

 

[kabbes]

Individual cases are always going to be argued about. But there’s a lot of evidence that one way or other, men collectively massively fail to do their share of basic household chores.