Caveat: I hesitate to open this line of argument, because I’m sure there will be a fella or two who, after the Hoyden/LP Coultergeist misogyny threads last week, might think that this is aimed squarely at them. Please be assured that this issue truly is much bigger than a coupla fellas on a coupla Oz progblogs.
The familiar phenomenon of sexism as the pervasive, multitudinous expressions of the “double standard” applied to men and women needs little explanation for most of us.
The canonical example of the male mugging victim rarely, if ever, being second-guessed as to “what he could have done differently” (when such second-guessing is the universal experience of the female rape victim) is merely one of the starker expressions of acculturated, reflexive sexism. (Reflexive sexism being unexamined attitudes rather than overt and deliberate misogyny, which is more easily understood and properly refrained from by all decent people.)
Another classic example of the overt reflexive double standard would be the gym teacher who made a teenage girl leave a weightlifting class because all the other students were male and he said she had to leave in case she might be assaulted by the boys: unthinkingly punishing the woman for male lack of self-control, either actual or hypothetical.
Then there’s a perennial favourite: the scowling men who puff themselves up to emphasise their height and weight advantage and then bark “Smile!” at women who are, through minding their own business, being insufficiently mindful of the submission display these men need to get through the day. 
Such men would generally deny that they are being domineering sexists (e.g. I just like it when women smile at me! What’s wrong with being more friendly?), despite the overt bullying nature of the reflexive behaviour.
But there is a more insidious reflexive sexism, which poisons relationships between men and women, because it flies under most people’s radar entirely. What I want to speak of is the special brand of reflexive sexism that I will call occulted sexism: hidden under either a layer of good intentions or a layer of dissembling; depending upon the person involved. (I use occulted here in the same way that astronomers use it.)
The sexism of low self-expectations, one might say. Where men who’ve had their consciousness raised regarding overt expressions of misogyny, and even who’ve had their eyes opened to certain reflexive double-standard attitudes, still haven’t entirely got “it”. The ones who want a cookie, a pat on the head, a bit of acknowledgement please for the amazing achievement of acting like a decent human being when around women.
Yes, the NiceGuys(TM) who want their gold stars.
Many blogular pixels have been expended upon the NiceGuys(TM). I’m not going to talk about the perpetual adolescent NiceGuy(TM) who thinks women are hypocrites for wanting to sleep with “jerks” instead of his niceynice self. That’s been done plenty, and I have nothing to add. I want to talk about the older NiceGuy(TM) who does in fact have relationships with women, relationships that last for some time. Yet in the end these relationships either fall apart or fester in mutual resentment.
Why? Mainly because these older NiceGuys(TM) keep on whining about not getting their gold stars for being NiceGuys(TM) when they treat us women no differently than they treat the males with whom they interact, or when they step up to do a fair share of domestic work (that they never thank the women around them for when the women do the work).
Suck it up, fellas.
If you don’t make a big fuss of thanks and congratulations when the women around you do a domestic task, don’t be offended if no woman gives you a gold star for the domestic task you’ve just completed.
If you don’t make a big song and dance when men at work listen to your good ideas, discuss them respectfully and maybe implement a few, then don’t expect your female colleagues to stop and specially thank you with a gold star if you listen to their good ideas etc.
Think about it.
You don’t get a gold star for not daydreaming at the office.
You don’t get a gold star for not cheating on the exam.
You don’t get a gold star for removing the private details of a male lawyer from your website when you’ve refused to remove pictures and private details of female law students who’ve objected to your website.
You don’t get a gold star for not embezzling from the company.
You don’t get a gold star for not speeding or not drink-driving.
You don’t get a gold star for not murdering.
That’s because there are certain standards that society expects decent human beings to adhere to as a matter of course, because they are ethically sound. Treating women like full human beings who deserve egalitarian interactions is a basic ethical standard, not some noble sacrifice that deserves recognition and praise. It’s basic decency, not a martyrdom.
Corollaries: generally, if you keep on expecting gold stars for stepping up to the plate of egalitarianism and common decency, you will be resented. This resentment will manifest in interactions and environments that are less pleasant for all concerned - i.e. including you - than they would be if you would just let go of the gold star mentality.
Now, there may be some fellas, and some fellas’ partners, out there who think I’m being unduly harsh, even though I’m not necessarily talking about them. Certainly I don’t think all men who state a goal of being non-sexist want their quota of gold stars every single day.
But it surely wouldn’t hurt most men to just have a quiet look inside yourself at how many gold stars you’ve expected lately, eh? Or for most women to take a quiet look at how many gold stars they’ve been expected to bestow.
Treating people decently shouldn’t need reinforcing with gold stars, or if it does the flow should go more than just one way. If a gold star discrepancy is poisoning your relationships, how can you do better?
Crossposted at Hoyden About Town
Don’t you write well, dear.
God love you. Luvvies and their little moral panics and rituals. I did not realize that there were women under the age of 50 who indulged in this kind of manufactured crises anymore. Will there be a “take back the night” march in Mosman y’all will be attending?
FDB:
[insert Sally Field Oscar-winner impression here]
One for the credit side of my ledger!
Humphrey McQueen raised a point vaguely related to this, but pointing in the opposite direction, in his collection of essays called “Temper Democratic“.
He said that it’s not necessarily a good idea for a woman to say ‘it’s about bloody time’ if a man starts to do housework he’s previously neglected.
Tactically, I can see his point, but I guess there would be a counter-argument that goes ‘Actually, I’m sick of having to think tactically just to get a man to pull his weight around the house’.
John Greenfield, the words you use follow all the rules of grammar and sentence construction, but I just don’t see how they in any way relate to the above article. Especially ‘manufactured crisis’.
You may wish to check out Textr, an application that lets you set up your own abbreviations. You could, for instance, just set it up so that when you type ‘arlsl’ it would turn your keystrokes into ‘Age-reading latte-sipping luvvies’, which would save you a fair bit of time.
You have some major issues!!
Bad luck.
Get over it.
As I said to my wife before she left me.
Funny, she never would explain why.
Then there’s a perennial favourite: the scowling men who puff themselves up to emphasise their height and weight advantage and then bark “Smile!� at women who are, through minding their own business, being insufficiently mindful of the submission display these men need to get through the day.
The world is full of jerks. If you’re going to get upset every time you come across one, no wonder you can get so angry about such insignificant behaviour.
I’d have thought that this reactionary crap from Greenfield, Razor and Halfweeg was a caricature written by Germaine Greer on one of her more self-righteous and less-relevant days, if I wasn’t seeing it appear in front of me.
And no, boys, I’m not angling for a gold star either.
Once you pratts have taken the femos down, can’t be long before the lefty beta (at best) males like me are in the sights.
Of course, any woman that simply mentions that sexist attitudes exist is “so angry” and sexist bullying is “insignificant” because Brendan says so.
By the way, any other Oz-bloggers who’ve put up a post for IWD/BASD, please put a link to it in comments seeing as LP doesn’t accept automated trackback pings.
Oh crap. Redirect here everyone who subscribes to the post-feminist (aka hallucinatory) world view. In a society where women are subjected to the greatest amount of violence, earn 85% of the pay of their similarly educated and experienced male peers and do most (I’m guessing 95%) of the unpaid work (child rearing, housework, volunteer work) we still have a situation where a mild call for men not to expect grovelling every time they do the dishes is greeted with “get over it”. (Not including you of course David).
Isn’t it strange how every expression of a political view which engages with issues predominantly experienced by women draws some variant of “oh you are just being emotive, *insert sexist diminutive here*.”
Fuck OFF NOB HEADS (please feel free to disemvowel, moderator).
I think people making this point should flesh it out more when they do.
Every job I’ve worked in, I’ve been paid the same as my female colleagues in the same role (most of my work has been done in call centres).
I assume this figure is driven by:
1) Women at higher levels of the corporate ladder getting paid less (which I can’t find myself getting too worried about)
and
2) Women being over-represented in lower-paid jobs, which is a real issue, IMO.
To people who work in standardised jobs like call centres, it appears at first glance that there is equal pay for equal work, so going a bit further to explain it might help to sink the point home a bit more.
Are there any factors I am missing?
David, there are usually two factors operating - vertical gender segregation (ie men clustered in the higher grades of an occupation or workplace) and horizontal gender segregation (ie women have the majority of jobs in industries where low pay prevail). With WorkChoices, though, it’s now becoming more common for men and women doing the same work to get unequal remuneration - because an excuse can always be found to distinguish between individuals on individual agreements.
Oh, and men are more likely to have full time jobs.
no disemvowelling required for good old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon bluntness, Suze.
And don’t let FDB’s wit blind you to his general non-needing of gold starriness.
But yes, as to your general point, it’s amazing how the mildest pointing to the everyday intimate exercising of the double standard gets some goats, isn’t it?
But sadly predictable, tigtog.
For John Greenfield’s information, I’m 33. He might like to talk to some women trade unionists, or actually take note of actually existing women involved in feminist groups, and reconcieve his ludicrously stereotyped ideas. But that might stop him from using “luvvies” in every second comment. If he had to, you know, think about stuff.
What about when you want me to get a gold star?
Btw, great post, tigtog!
Ditto!
Thanks tig tog ( I notice I needed re-enconsonanting as well)- I was wise to FDB’s tongue in cheekiness, and was venting at Grassland, risible and halfweet.
I wonder whether there isn’t some general point to be made about how issues related to basic human rights and societal issues for women get enframed by men as purely personal, and interpersonal beefs hence all the “hey men get hurt too” style of refutation. (But I’ve been supping at the Feministe Barre et Grille and have got no further than wondering.)
I think the Whimiscal War of late 2006 is a good place to start.
That sort of thing is one of the reasons I value LP, even though my opinons are in a tiny minority here about 70% of the time.
Helen has a post up at Cast Iron Balcony:
http://castironbalcony.media2.org/?p=327
And Kirsty has a groovy picture for IWD:
http://galaxyofemptiness.blogspot.com/2007/03/hey-sistah.html
And Dr Cat had a post about sexism yesterday!
http://pavlovblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/not-at-all-dolce-gabbana.html
Every day is Blog Against Sexism Day!
Here’s my contribution.
PS - Ignore the wingnuts.
PPS - Tigtog, you’ll never get a husband with an attitude like that
Suze, only just noticed this comment because I didn’t think anything you said could have been referring to me, since I’m about seven years past my need for affirmation as a pro-feminist (thankfully).
I think the most pathetic thing I ever said while I was being a tryhard was that women should not learn formal logic because it was a ‘masculine construct’ or some bollocks like that [cringe, any jeering or criticism will be taken on the chin].
The young feminist who I said that to said that she found it very interesting indeed that just as women were starting to get their hands on these sort of analytical tools, there was an intellectual movement that tried to devalue them.
I’ve also had some rather painful realisations in the last seven-odd years about my own bullying habits, which is one of the reasons I live alone and do my own dishes.
But that’s enough about my problems. How can men be of actual use in a struggle for equality?
I’ll give you a gold star David.
I wrote a post yesterday (coincidentally with IWD) on how I got to be so angry about how women are regarded and treated. I am not panicked I am murderous. IWD shits me because it reminds me of how many times in recent years I’ve had to suffer the subtle and not so subtle put downs by men, young and old, who were threatened by me because I was intelligent, forthright, generally far less cowardly then they and alot less stupid. Such qualities as they should’ve had themselves but apparently realised they lacked and so instead attacked me for having them.
If you can’t get through the whole post, scroll to the bottom where there is a link to a paper that has just been written on the subject of women in Australia over the last 10 years.
link
DJ
Well, I maybe wrong, but my take is that men should treat women/men as people rather than indulging in gender - specific generalisations.
Matter of fact, I think the same should apply to women, too.
Might result in humanity though
Of course, Dr Cat! But today’s there’s a logo and tigtog gets to post a picture of a dinosaur!
[PARODY]
Well that spoils everything. You’re obviously not a real feminist.
[/PARODY]
Your attitude in your post appeals to my prejudice that freedom and rights are not given, they are won by defying the established order.
Your friend is a revisonist sell-out. I’d have advised you to glass him.
IMMEDIATE AND WORRIED DISCLAIMER: Yes, not the correct response, I know, but that’s my gut reaction. So let’s move on from there.
Serious suggestion instead of violent fantasy:
If that guy thought you were going to react in some way that would damage his pride or physical well-being, he would have been far less likely to do what he did.
This brings into sharp relief the differences between two quite different strategies to advance the freedom of women.
1) Winning male allies where possible.
2) Thinking ‘bugger asking the males to play nice, we need to get stronger so they won’t dare to muck with us. Let them deal with us on our terms.’
(NB not the same as separatism, which I think is a ridiculous and self-defeating strategy, although it can be of value as a short-term tactic in EG shelters for abused women and children)
BTW, the link to the document at the bottom of your post is broken.
Pterosaur, on one level I get and agree with what you are saying. I do all I can, and succeed a lot of the time. in treating my female friends as intellectual equals (not that they would let me get away with anything else).
But in a world where there are structural differences that affect the status of women v men, there may well be actions required that mean we have to go well beyond the implications of your suggestion.
Link, assuming you mean the study from the Democratic Audit people, this is the link to “How Well does Democracy serve Australian Women”. (pdf file).
Thanks David, here it is. Re arsehole in pub, he was a complete coward because he could see that my hands were quite literally full and that I had no way of defending myself. However, I rarely react violently in the instant, mostly intuiting that it is neither a smart thing to do or, on quick reflection, will it allow me to claim the moral highground. I don’t know what I should have done. My hands were full, but my feet were free maybe a swift kick to the shins or elsewhere might have sorted him out and then I could have had him ejected. I was probably mostly concerned however with not dropping a tray full of glasses.
The only way this ‘war’ (ducks under bombardment) will be won is through reason and commonsense, which under current regimes is not going to happen in my lifetime. It took the better part of at least 5000 years for it to be recognised by most men (not all and certainly not globally) that women were equally intelligent.
I don’t understand the post.
I havn’t expected any gold stars lately.
That’s the one David merci. I don’t know how to hyperlink a PDF file.
Oh, come on. Expecting praise for performing tasks others don’t particularly value is a very human trait. I’ve met tonnes of women (as well as a multitude of men) who act in the exact way tigtog describes above in all kinds of circumstances.
It’s more revealing that this very commonplace manifestation of the ego has been turned into a gender issue. The old saying about everything looking like a nail when you’re a hammer springs to mind.
Link, it should work in the same way as linking to any other web address. If you are using the Firefox browser, I went to the ‘focus’ page that you linked to above, right-clicked on the link to the pdf file and pressed ‘copy link location’ in the menu that appeared when I right-clicked.
I then came back here, selected the words: ‘this is the link to “How Well does Democracy serve Australian Womenâ€?’ in my post, clicked the ‘link’ button at the top of the comment box and pressed ‘paste’ so that the link address to the pdf file appeared in the dialog box. I then pressed ‘OK’ on the dialog box and the link was added to my post.
Let me know if this is still unclear, or if you are not using Firefox on a PC. In particular, tell me what you see in the menu that appears when you right-click on the link to the pdf file.
James Waterton, if there is already structural inequality in the world (which I believe there is), then a desire for unearned gold stars will weigh more heavily on women than men, even if your assertion that men and women display this tendency equally is true.
This is because men will be more able than women to successfully obtain these stars, and women will have to provide them, or face the consequences for not providing them.
In any case, the fact that something is a common human behaviour doesn’t mean that it means the same in every context. Look for instance at the stats on comparative unpaid homework done by cohabiting couples over the last 30 years - there are many rigorous studies on this. It’s not moved all that much - women still do most of it. But the “gold star” - “look, honey, I cooked dinner” - line clearly invites praise for doing something which is utterly routine and normal for the other partner in terms of expectations and gender roles. Laura had an interesting post (either here or at her blog, I forget) where she looked at some crummy gift book of “romantic cheques” you could buy your (female) Valentine - full of stuff like “I promise not to watch tv tonight and have a meaningful conversation”. Interestingly, all these were couched in terms of women’s nagging and though supposedly benefitting the female partner, were supposed to result in a sexual “reward” for the male.
Bush and IWD:
http://www.democrats.com/node/12205
While we all know that anecdote is not proof, it can’t be a coincidence — ie these stories get told all the time, because they happen all the time — that when I went to meet my oldest friend just this afternoon to buy her a birthday drink (SA sparkling red, aaaaahhh), she told me a story about her early-retired (ie has the whole day free except when he’s playing with his shares) partner proudly saying, when she arrived home from work exhausted, ‘Look, I did the washing!’ and gesturing at the unfolded, unironed clothes spread all over the house — including the six clean shirts, three pairs of impossible R. M. Williams moleskins and 4,000 handkerchiefs of his that she was then expected to iron and put away.
Dr Cat, there are actually studies I’m aware of which point to partnered men having the quickest advancement in their professional careers because someone else washes their socks and irons their shirts and cooks them dinner. True stories! Careers don’t just rest on talent and application, but also on a usually invisible support and care network. Of course, most sistahs have to do it by themselves!
Kim, it’s decades out of date now, but Vance Packard’s The Pyramid Climbers makes the point that part of the constant, intrusive surveillance and judgement of American corporate managers was an assessment of how ’suitable’ wives were. Suitablility implied the ability to entertain successfully, to be presentable at corporate functions, to support the husband’s career etc.
Men with more ’suitable’ wives were far more likely to be promoted, according to Packard.
Once you pratts have taken the femos down, can’t be long before the lefty beta (at best) males like me are in the sights.
Lefties are always in my sights. Equality before the law is not feminism or leftism, it is something I firmly believe in. I don’t believe in equality in outcomes because I know that not everyone has the same objectives or ability or access to resources. The best we can do is allow people to fulfill their potential (pursuing their own personal objectives) within the limits of their ability and access to resources.
Leftists and feminists seek to blame lack of equality in outcomes on these differences, and then go about trying to minimise them by alienating (sometimes even punishing) those with different objectives, abilities and access to resources through collectivisation (grouping disparate individuals together, such as treating women as a homogeneous group), affirmative action (discounting merit over dicersity) and wealth redistribution (punishing hard work and reward for ability).
Leftists discount personal choice in the lack of equality in outcomes, because they often see personal choice as a failing of human nature. From this perspective, people’s failure to make the correct decision is a failure of the education system for not giving them enough information, society’s fault for not encouraging them in the right direction, the privileged’s fault for, for, well, for being privileged and creating envy, and for being prejudiced, and well, for being humans with failings like everyone else, but having economic means and resources that means that they don’t have to suffer for their failings.
Of course, any woman that simply mentions that sexist attitudes exist is “so angry� and sexist bullying is “insignificant� because Brendan says so.
I’m sorry, I got the impression that you were quite angry about this behaviour, you weren’t seeming to dismiss it as a minor annoyance. Being pissed of at an idividual who immaturely seeks to peacock about is one thing, but you seemd to have a bigger agenda than simply your own personal experience. I was getting the feeling of “All men are jerks, even the ones that try to be nice” coming out of your post, sorry if I’ve misinterpreted.
I look down on anyone that needs to be fawned or flattered in order to have self worth, male or female. I do, however, get pissed off by feminists having “All men are assholes” rants.
“feminists having “All men are assholesâ€? rants.”
I didn’t get that impression from this post. And I’m speaking as a real equal opportunity asshole.
And Brendan I suspect some of the things you’ve just said are gonna get ripped to shreds over the next 48 hours in a way that’ll make you feel quite patronized, insulted and throughly bristling over others lack of empathy with how you see your place in the world. Cheer up though, you won’t be alone. Around 50% of the planet quite often feels the same way.
Personally I reckon we’ll have only achieved true equality of the sexes when we see as many incompentent women as men promoted beyond their ability.
But it’s true men are innately superior at some things. Like for instance, employing cursive lettering when writing one’s name in the snow.
No, you don’t get a “gold star” for not doing things - but “treating women (or anyone else) like human beings” is a positive thing, not the absence of a negative one. A person who observes positive standards has a right to expect that they in turn will be treated with a measure of respect beyond that given to someone who has merely neglected to murder anyone lately. It’s possible to read this post (the last few paras in particular) and conclude that the writer doesn’t believe this, because no definition is given for this concept of “expecting gold stars”. Indeed, we are not even sure if gold star expectations are bad things intrinsically, or are merely distributed inequitably.
I didn’t get that impression from this post. And I’m speaking as a real equal opportunity asshole.
Praytell, what exactly is a real equal opportunity asshole? Do you drive around in 1967 Cadilac El Dorado Convertable, hot pink, with whale skin hub caps, an all leather cow interior and big brown baby seal eyes for headlights (to paraphrase the immortal Denis Leary)?
And Brendan I suspect some of the things you’ve just said are gonna get ripped to shreds over the next 48 hours in a way that’ll make you feel quite patronized, insulted and throughly bristling over others lack of empathy with how you see your place in the world.
I doubt I’ll feel too patronized, I’ll be probably be insulted, but feel insulted, unlikely (although I do like a good humourous coal raking), and I don’t really need empathy, so bristling for lack of it might be crossed off the list as well.
Like I’ve already stated, I do believe in women’s (everybody’s)equality before the law, I just don’t believe in equality of outcomes. I don’t believe the law should be used to try to direct more equality in outcomes either.
I don’t have a lot of time for pople who don’t respect people either, and I don’t mean respect their ideas or beliefs, ideas and beliefs are there to be challenged, not accepted.
Complaining about petty behaviour and dressing it up as sexism is counter-productive.
Nabakov
I think that you nailed it right there. There is a reason why it is called the “Peter principle” and not the “Mary principle”. A feature of the phenomenon is that the competent are kept doing the work and the incompetent are promoted to get them out of the way.
There are a number of things that women can do to improve their lot.
1. Write the rules down so that men don’t have to clumsily stumble across them by accident.
2. Dull off their highly selective memories.
3. Become more entrepreneurial.
4. Stop protecting abusive arsehole men.
5. Do what my wife does and just don’t do the housework.
Try it. It might work.
suze says,
How does such drivel persist without serious scrutiny? Shouldn’t we see a ubiquitous number of women walking around with black eyes and busted lips panhandling for that 15% in stolen wages? Last week 1 in 4 women were victims of rape and were only making 72 cents on the dollar. This week they only make 85 cents on the dollar (about a 20% increase) and if 25% of women are victims of rape then one could conclude that a greater number of women are victims of assault. Where are these 30, 40, 50% of women that are “subject to the greatest amount of violence?” The average man should have about 3-4 lady friends out of every 10 that are battered and bruised with pennies in their pockets. Is this reality?
Because it was first articulated by Dr Laurence J Peter.
David
No! even Dr Peter new who buttered his bread. The maid not the butler.
BilB, it’s probably safe to assume that Dr Peter had the implications and advantages of sexism all around him, but that is his name on the principle, and is not in itself ment to be a criticism of gender equality.
But yeah, I’m sure his maid (if he had one) did more work than his butler.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Which is another way of saying that some leftists, and some feminists and pro-feminists, reject the idea that formal legal equality, in itself, could ever be enough to guarantee even a fighting chance of a good life for many people.
We can aspire to far more than that. We can also study the structures and habits of society that keep some people less fulfilled than others, and seek to change those structures and habits. We can also aspire to raise people’s abilities and make it easier for them to get access to resources.
Petty behaviour as described by tigtog is a constant drip-feed of low-grade sexism that directly helps to enforce the current structures of inequality. What is counter-productive is accepting it as in some way natural or inevitable, and deciding that the world can never be changed.
Oh my GOD! ? Have I been listening to feminists? Who think that society might need to be altered? I feel betrayed.
Perhaps some sort of warning label on the top of LP might make this less likely in future:
WARNING! Despite our best efforts, some posts by feminists challenging the structure of society appear now and again on LP.
We apologise for this, and know you will understand that ever since they got the vote, the women are getting harder and harder to handle.
Oh, FFS! Just how much does a feminist need to walk on eggshells to not have demeaning crap like this turn up in a comments box?
It’s as jaded and pathetic as ‘a feminist yelled at me because I held the door open for her’.
And FWIW, I’ve held doors open for hundreds of women, and have not once been criticised. And if an unreasonable woman claims that I am being patronising by doing so, I will glare at her and say that “I held the door out of politeness, and would expect you to do the same if you were walking ahead of me.”
Not that I expect to ever have to use it
Brendan:
That’s actually a very good summation of the gold-starrers. You are also right to point out that it’s not only male-female interactions where gold stars are expected.
Strawman. What leftists advocate is equality of opportunity, on the assumption that if there is true equality of opportunity then equality of outcomes (demographically) will naturally be the result.
Captain Wacky:
Treating any other human being as a human being is a positive act, not merely the absence of a negative? Really? Your default state, that you have to make a conscious effort to overcome in every single human interaction, is to treat all other people as not human?
Gold stars are a useful transitional training tool in a wide variety of situations, including that of the proto-profeminist. The inequitable distribution of them in any relationship outside a training period is going to foster resentments. Resentments accumulating in either personal or professional relationships are hardly positive.
I’m a tad curious why nearly everyone’s concentrating on the domestic chores side rather than addressing the listening equally to female colleagues side.
Personally, I’m much better at treating female colleagues equally than doing my share of the housework.
trolldaddy (whom the moderator - moi - has whimsically decided to allow through this time):
Addressing only the bolded portions
1) maybe (just maybe) the discrepancy is the differeing rates of pay between your country and our country? Rather than some terrible evil feminist lie?
2) Seeing as how your lady friends would only come from the set of women who aren’t too afraid/bruised/controlled to go out of their homes, how would you know?
If you can address this logically without the usual flecks of spittle I might let your next coment through too.
1. WTF are you like, 7
2. WTF??
3. WTF squared
4. Ah yes the abused are required to take the abuser firmly in hand that is definitely the answer
5. Done.
Where’s your list of what men can do?
Here’s mine;
Take responsibility for your own shit.
Finis
Well written, TT. A gold star for you.
FdG at 9:43am:
Vrrrooooooooooooommmm!
Tigtog: Great Post!
As for Brendan Halfwit, Trolldaddy, John Greenfield, and Razor - thank you for always being there to prove the importance of the feminist movement. People like you only serve to reinforce for me the very reasons why we need to continue to critically examine societal attitudes and structures and to fight for our right to equality - it is pretty clear that we wouldn’t get it if you blokes had your way.
Coming in a little late, but anyway …
David Jackmanson:
thordaddy:
In Australia, the gap between men and women with equivalent experience and education (controlling for other factors, too) is around 13 per cent of wages in the public sector. In the private sector it varies across the wage distribution, from around 6 per cent at the lower levels, to around twenty per cent at the 3 quartile (ie. the top 25 per cent of female wage earners earn around 20 per cent less than the top 25 per cent of male wage earners). See Prof Alison Booth’s paper here.
Every time I look at this it astounds me. WTF?? I can’t see it explicitly in my workplace, but nevertheless it’s still there. What are we doing/not doing that lets this continue?
Just to be a little more on the topic … I agree that trawling for Gold Stars is juvenile and an implicit form of discrimination. But I think that it is a secondary thing, and that there are a number of fist degree things to deal with first.
And what Cristy just said.
I think one of my biggest concerns with the whole ‘older NiceGuy TM’ phenomenon that tigtog describes so well, is that at no point does it require the benevolent one, so proud of treating women and others like human beings, to interrogate his own privilege, to effectively give up anything. The problem isn’t women, or any other non white-middle-class-middle-aged-heterosexual male identity but the thoroughly unexamined sense of entitlement held by so many who have access to so much, simply because they are white-middle-class- middle-aged-heterosexual males.
*waves* Hello.
Maybe if your female friends thought you’d be more sympathetic, they’d tell you about their experiences.
Excellent post, Tigtog.
Actually, I think lists are a really helpful thing. If your partner has different ideas about cleanliness or what housework needs to be done from your ideas, why not have a list?
Do you honestly think it’s a better idea to either ignore the fact that they’re not doing housework and inwardly seethe about it, or to rant and rave at them about not pulling their weight, rather than to discuss and agree to a tangible list of what needs doing so that everything gets done and everyone does their part?
Sheesh, we have a list, and I think it’s the greatest idea ever. Neither of us are seven, either!
Oh, and the 85% thing? Suze referred to it and then David Jackmanson said:
and someone else suggested more women were in part time work. All true, but these figures are standardised for full time employment, and are done for equivalent jobs in equivalent industries - e.g. male teachers compared with female teachers, rather than a whole bunch of low-paid female teachers being compared with male executives, which would make zero sense. So the figures have NOTHING to do with more women doing part-time work, or with women being over-represented in lower paying jobs/industries (which is a whole ‘nother issue in itself).
You can check the ABS stats on the pay gap by industry here.
And it sucks.
(But Suze also suggested women do 95% of the domestic work, which is an exaggeration. The figure is more like two-thirds (still bad, but not 95%))
I’m all for negotiating, Rebekka but that is not what BilB said.
No, he said make a list - which is exactly what I did, and it’s working really well for us.
I don’t get why that would provoke a response about are you seven?
Dearest Christy,
Thankyou for leaping to your heroic conclusions.
Perhaps you might like to take into account the fact that:
I acted as an Anti-Discrimination Officer and proudly carry on my belt the scalp of a serial sexual harrasser - cost him his career and marriage!!
I have a daughter who I want to be the first Female Liberal Prime Minister - if she wants to.
I employ more females than males and pay SIGNIFICANTLY above award rates - my lowest paid employee is a non-tertiary trained 20 year old earning $40,000.
I have just had another of my employees return to work after succcesful (so far) treatment of breast cancer. There was no limit to her sick leave. There are now no demands on her to work anymore than she wants and is able to.
I am out here in the real world actually doing real things. I treat everybody equally and expect the same back.
As I said before - get over it. Take responsibility for your own life and get on with it. If females make study and career choices that limit them then that is their choice. If women pair up with men who think in terms of women’s work/man’s work then that is their choice and their problem.
My wife is at home bringing up the kids and I do less house work - this isn’t a male/female thing - it is a rational choice about who is better suited to different roles. I can’t breast feed and she (in her chosen profession) can’t make the same money as I can. She is free to go back to work wheneve she wants. I pick up the dog poo off the lawn, not because that is a guy thing but because we have decided that I look after the garden and my better half dry wretchs when she has to deal with dog poo.
If you want to be a victim - good luck. If you want to make your own decisions, take responsibility for your own life and stick it up a few mysogynists along the way then get on with it.
Rebekka, it is the difference between two people who feel equally responsible sitting down and working out an arrangement and a woman making a list of rules of do’s and don’ts and when and hows. It is the latter that makes the woman responsible by default and leads to the pat on the head mentality. The comment Bil B made was specifically in relationship to what “a woman can do to improve her lot”.
Dearest Rasor
You have addressed Cristy often enough, and had it pointed out often enough, that I can’t help but think your continued misspelling of her name is deliberate. It is rude, lazy and inexcusable.
Well, it appears so. The impression I receive from this post is that you think few if any men observe what you regard as acceptable standards, because those who merely think they do trip up on this issue of gold star expectations. Is this because of a “default state”, or is there something uniquely iniquitous about the way people are nurtured by modern western society?
I hate to drag the discussion back on topic, but I’ve never met any of these men. Most blokes do domestic work to (a) keep the peace and (b) get some nookie and (c) have a shirt for Monday (in that order).
If you’re complaining about some girly-man you’ve managed to subjugate but no longer find appealing because they are subservient, well, suck it up.
Anna,
I don’t know if you believe me but it is not intentional and I apologise to Cristy if it causes offence.
Please feel free to correct the typo if you wish.
It doesn’t bother me how you spell my na