WSA conference, or my disillusions with second-wave feminism.

[Edit: I was pretty pissed off when I wrote this and I'm not necessarily proud of everything I wrote. Please read this post in the context of my later post here]

I’ve just spent the weekend at the Women’s Studies Association of NZ conference. It was interesting, to say the least! Lots of really amazing, inspiring people doing really cool things (hopefully, the subject of a future post). But the overall direction of the organisation has left me profoundly uncomfortable.

I was absolutely shocked to learn on Saturday that only women were allowed to attend the conference. I’d read something about only women being allowed to present, which seemed kinda archaic in itself, but the ban on other genders attending the conference seemed beyond ridiculous.

I learnt about it in the context of someone I’d just met telling me that she’d signed her boyfriend up without even thinking about it, only to be told he couldn’t attend. The reaction from many of us was simply… Wtf.

I do appreciate the need for women’s spaces. I do enjoy being in women’s only spaces, and the reprieve it gives us from the patriarchal world we have to deal with everywhere else. And I absolutely appreciate the historical context of the organisation, and the second wave feminism that it grew out of. It has achieved a lot, and I respect that.

But things have moved on, and this was evidenced by the fact that I was one of a handful of people under 30, and that 2/3 or so of attendees had grey hair. The organisation has been struggling to get people in its leadership positions for the last 10 years, and wants the younger generation to take up the mantle.

Yet, it refuses to listen. It wants the next generation to take over, but only on the older generation's terms.

I went to the AGM today (which was part of the conference) out of curiosity more than anything else. There’d been a lot of talk on this issue, and I wanted to see what eventuated.

After all the usual boring AGM-y stuff, a motion was moved to allow “men” to contribute articles to the WSA journal.

Men. Yes. Not people, but men.

Problematic on two levels, right? One, why the fuck could men not contribute already, and two, what about all the frikkin people who don’t identify as men or women? Why on earth would a feminist organisation exclude the already marginalised even more?

We have to stop believing in this ridiculously essentialist gender binary (and of course, that All Men Are Evil) and start to acknowledge that like, a) other genders exist, and are marginalised not just by the patriarchy but also by feminists, and b) that men are not the fucking problem, patriarchy is, and there are plenty of amazing guys (and PEOPLE) doing amazing work in this field that have a lot to contribute, and to ignore and exclude them is just… silly.

So anyway, discussion on this motion quickly turned into discussion on inclusion of men and other genders at the conferences and in the Association in general. Because they are exactly the same issue. But because this discussion about the future of the Association was the next item on the agenda, the discussion was not taken seriously, and then of course we ran out of time.

It went something like this.

One of the older feminists would talk for ages.

A friend of mine bravely pointed out the idiocy of excluding other genders.

More second-wave rant.

I started speaking about how I was absolutely shocked about the exclusion of men, and other genders, at the conference, and was interrupted by the chair because my point was not relevant to the discussion at hand. I responded that I was just talking from my experience, because I didn’t know anything about the journal, and it’s the same fucking issue anyway.

And that if you want young feminists to get involved, you have to start taking their views seriously, and not excluding huge sections of the population. And that I wasn’t a member, and didn’t intend to be, until they stopped being so bloody exclusive.

Then another older woman, who was “sitting on the fence” (and someone I quite admire, in other contexts) talked on and on for like 10 minutes (and really, not all of it was entirely relevant to the conversation) – with no interruption from the chair.

Then another friend made pretty much the same points as I did, and was interrupted after about a minute, being told she had to wrap up. She very bravely said “no, let me finish” and did so with the powerful statement that men are not the problem, patriarchy is. (duh)

It was suggested by someone that there could be some kind of compromise, with conferences open to all genders with some workshops/sessions just for women. Probably a fair enough solution, and it would have been nice to discuss it more.

Then the motion was passed on the men being able to write journal articles thing. If I’d been a member (and therefore able to vote) I probably would have abstained. Fucking ridiculous that they couldn’t just change men to “people”, and therefore include everyone (which was probably the intention, but their refusal to see gender in anything other than binary meant they didn’t get that it was still not inclusive).

Then there was only 10 minutes left, so no time for the actually important conversation on “where to”/”how do we get young people involved”, due to the chair’s refusal to regard that as the real issue at hand.

It was suggested that we come back together after the last panel to continue the discussion and I (and many others) thought this was decided on.

Lunch happened, and lots of interesting conversations about this issue. I do have to point out that some of the older women expressed their support for what we were saying, which was really good.

And then, after the last panel (of young feminists, interestingly), thanks and goodbyes were said, and that was it.

We were all like, wtf, what just happened. Apparently it was because some people had to leave. But we were really surprised, because it had seemed like the additional discussion was gonna happen, and we’d been preparing what to say.

I am really appalled and upset by this whole thing. I was truly shocked that men and other gender identities were excluded in the first place, and even more shocked by the discussion that happened at the AGM and the way that we were silenced and marginalised, if not by the majority of people there then certainly by the most vocal.

And that was only those of us who didn’t feel isolated/marginalised/disillusioned enough that we actually went to this conference.

As I said to one of the organisers, not only should they be listening to those of us who were speaking up; but they really need to be engaging with the people who WEREN’T there, and find out why and what they need to change in order to make it an open, inclusive and accessible space.

I was further offended by the suggestion that I should become a member in order to engage in further discussion on this issue. My response was that I’m not going to join an organisation that I fundamentally disagree with, and if they really want new people to join, they are the ones that have to go out and engage, and make it a space that people want to be part of.

And all this without even touching on the issues of race and class, which were also sorely lacking from the conference in general. It was overwhelmingly white, middle class and academic. It comes as no surprise that their continue to be negative stereotypes of feminists when they are so far out of touch with society.

And I sincerely hope this changes. Like I said, I truly respect the work of second-wave feminists. It would be a shame for the organisation to be disbanded, after all the hard work that these women have dedicated their lives to. And of course, there is a lot left to do, as we still live in a deeply patriarchal society. Better to build on these imperfect foundations than to start again from scratch.

Hopefully a blog on the more positive aspects of the weekend (there were plenty!) coming soon.

[UPDATE:] On further reflection, I realise there is a huge difference between including gender minorities such as trans*, intersex and genderqueer, and including cis-men. These are different issues, but both need to be addressed - for different reasons.

Gender minorities need to be included because they are also oppressed by the patriarchy, often more than women, and it is shocking that this is even still something that needs discussing. It should be a given. Even if there is no intent to exclude them (and I am not sure whether or not this is the case), it needs to be absolutely explicit that they are welcome in feminist spaces, and steps need to be taken to show they are actually welcome. Allowing "men" to contribute to the journal was a step in the wrong direction for this.

The discussion about inclusion of cis-men is more complicated, as they are often seen as the "problem", being the ones in the position of privilege and power. There is a desire to exclude them because women often feel excluded in men's spaces, and can feel unsafe when they are men around. Which is fair enough.

But at the same time, in any movement it is necessary to have allies, and especially to have allies in positions of power. There was plenty of talk from the younger feminists about (cis) guys who know as much about feminism than they do, and who can be really strong role models to younger guys about what sexism is, and what appropriate behaviour is.

As long as they acknowledge their own privilege (which the guys who are genuinely engaged with feminism do), guys like this would have a lot to offer, and a lot to learn, from this kind of conference. They would be able to spread their knowledge of feminism to their own, male communities, to start a dialogue and encourage understanding. Which, surely, is what we want, right?

Of course, both of these are about rejecting gender binary as a social construct, so in that sense they do have a lot in common. But I think it might be helpful to realise these different reasons for inclusion when we have these discussions.

Sexist jokes - reinforcing patriarchy, or critiquing it?

This is an email I wrote to a lecturer of mine, following up on a discussion we had after class last week. It was really interesting for me to do some research on the topic - it is SUCH a complex issue, and I feel that the more I read the more complex it gets, and the less I know. But here is my best attempt at articulating my view. Fingers are crossed for a response...

I want to start by explaining that I am not accusing you of sexism. I don’t believe that you are sexist. My point though, is that despite best intentions, comments intended as harmless can actually have really negative effects, because of the sexist society that we live in.

As a woman, when I hear jokes like the one you made, I feel frustrated and disappointed. I didn’t laugh, because I didn’t find it funny. And then I felt left out for not laughing. This makes me feel like law school is still a sexist environment, especially for women, who, like myself, take feminism seriously. And it makes me really upset that most female law students don’t realize how sexist it is (see here for an explanation of internalised sexism).

This means another generation is growing up with ingrained sexist attitudes, and that is really upsetting. You could be helping to turn the tide against this.

I posed this question to my friends on Facebook:

“FB friends! Opinions on this please. Lecturer says, 

"As a woman, when you get married you promise to do all the cooking and ironing."

How would you interpret this?

a) hilarious, because it is so ridiculous to hold that opinion of women that of course its a joke. By poking fun at this perspective we are challenging it and showing how ludicrous it is;

or,

b) sexist and offensive, because while meant as a joke, the fact that people find it funny is a reflection of the embedded sexist attitudes we continue to hold as a society. Although meant as harmless, it actually enforces patriarchal norms and attitudes towards women.

Thoughts?”

Here are some of the responses I got. This one is from another student in the class.

"I think there were definitely overtones of sexism in that comment. While I definitely think (a) was the intended interpretation, it was pretty obvious it relied on all of us thinking of "get back in the kitchen" jokes, and the idea that, in the legal contract of marriage, there was no room for equal partnership, but instead a female's role was that of cooking/cleaning etc while the manly man role of protection and money earning was left to the manly man. It totally wouldn't explicitly perpetuate (b) but definitely, in seeing a senior lecturer who commands a good deal of respect of students, he should know that it could implicitly could be seen by many members of our class as legitimising those kind of comments because "oh we all know they're just jokes". No, I don't appreciate being told to go back in the kitchen. I'll go in the kitchen because I enjoy baking, not because I'm practicing for my potential husband. "

Another friend said:

"I think B. I think it's stupid to consider that such a joke would bring attention to a situation and challenge it - women don't need reminding that sexism exists, we face it every bloody day. It just perpetuates and trivialised women's positions, by saying "look, this happens, and we can laugh at it!""

Another friend said that “argument a) is very dependent on the audience not having underlying/unconscious prejudices”.

From another friend:

“a) could be ok if the lecturer uses it as platform to deconstruct sexism; but b) comes into play as someone who holds discriminatory views sees jokes as a legitimisation of these views and ascribes to the speaker the same values. Jokes are seen by these receivers as vehicles of getting past social politeness.”

These responses assured me that I am not alone in my reaction, and helped me to articulate my point of view.

I understand that the joke was meant as a); and that you were genuinely trying to critique sexist attitudes, by showing how ridiculous they are. My point is though, that despite best intentions, jokes like this can still be sexist and harmful.

I know you said that probably only a minority of people in the class are sexist. I agree that most people are not sexist. But if a joke serves to reinforce the attitudes of one sexist person, and tells them that sexism, misogyny and demeaning women are ok, then are you really comfortable contributing to this one person’s belief?

But more importantly, this is a wider issue. Maybe only a handful of people in the class are overtly sexist. But this doesn’t change the fact that this is a much wider issue, because even though maybe not many individuals hold openly sexist attitudes, we still live in a sexist society.

If the joke that you told had been in a vacuum, where sexism didn’t exist and had never existed, then fine. But the reality is, we live in a world where women continue to be oppressed, and jokes that target women, or make light of sexism, or even attempt to critique it, despite best intentions, do serve to reinforce attitudes of sexism and misogyny.

Also, people laughed at this joke because overt sexism used to be ok and now it isn’t. But overt sexism isn’t funny, it is a very serious issue. If people think that overt sexism in the past is funny, one would suspect that these same people continue to think that sexism is funny today.

In thinking about this issue, I have come across the concept of “enlightened sexism”. “Enlightened sexism insists that women have made plenty of progress because of feminism -- indeed, full equality has allegedly been achieved -- so now it's OK, even amusing, to resurrect sexist stereotypes of girls and women. After all, these images can't undermine women at this late date, right?”

This quote is from this truly brilliant article which I highly recommend you read.

Also, scientific studies on the issue, here and here. And a linguistics analysis here. And another good article on sexist jokes generally here.

There are plenty more out there, but this should be a good start. I hope you get the opportunity to read some of them, and that they provide some food for thought, in terms of the way you frame some of your jokes. I am certainly not against all humour; I just think it has to be done in a respectful way.

Exactly how it can be done respectfully is a very difficult question. This article gives a good attempt to answer it, but only in the context of TV. I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and try as I might, I don’t think there is a blanket rule which applies in all circumstances. I do think though, that the main thing to keep in mind is that, given the sexist society we live in, the way the audience interprets a joke will not necessarily be as intended. Perhaps the only way around this is to make your point explicitly. Maybe this will reduce the hilarity of the joke – but in these circumstances, maybe we should be weighing up the value of a laugh against the value of challenging patriarchy, and deciding which is more important.

I want to reinforce that I am not accusing you, as an individual, of being sexist. I have nothing but respect for you, especially given your willingness to engage with me on this issue, rather than simply dismissing my concerns.

My problem is with the way that sexism exists, and is allowed to exist, in our society, and especially at law school. Being that this is a space where the top legal minds of the future are being educated, I feel it is absolutely critical that we begin to address these structural inequalities and barriers.


UPDATE: also check out this article on hipster sexism. Didn't include it in the email, but I think very very relevant to this issue:

"Hipster sexism hinges on the assumption that “no one thinks this way anymore” and therefore it’s funny, like making a joke about horses and buggies or something. It allows for sexist comments under the guise of being sooo far above them, and it’s a lot harder to call out than non-ironic, old-fashioned sexism. (Ah, those were the days. JK I am being ironic! See?)"