what is to be done about homophobic pro feminists?
when someone in the wider, straight world is homophobic, there’s a chance that they’ll eventually meet with a shock when their friend or family member comes out, and they’ll think and change their attitudes.
our own nice little enlightened communities are not always so much better than the rest – there are plenty of men who call themselves pro feminist but still act misogynistically or homophobically. not only men of course, but the category certainly makes a case in point. some of these people think they know everything, and are not about to rethink their attitudes and behaviours, because they’ve already pondered the world, and placed themselves above the rest. they have the correct vocabulary, and the argument skills to tell you they’re right, whatever the content.
they’re always around people who would make others think, but it’s like they’re immune. how does one impress on someone, who thinks themself perfect, that they actually aren’t?
raising my voice, dropping my voice
i was at the frontline management course today. it was very interesting. after class yesterday sylvia and i had mentioned to the teacher that we didn’t appreciate the sexism that was coming out. today, we had to sit boy – girl – boy – girl around a u-shape. this was justified by a story about army dinners with her army husband, with the men getting up and moving down two places like a barn dance, to keep the ladies entertained.
then she got someone to keep time for ten minutes, in which none of the men were to speak. they couldn’t do it, with people starting to speak and being hushed, whistles, noise, and someone making a sign, with lots of antics to try to make people read it. the women meanwhile, got the fairly basic work done with a minimum of fuss, and i enjoyed the quiet immensely. the noise level in the room had been loud and constant.
then we had to switch. the noise level went back up, though not quite as high as before, and they discussed everything at rambling length, with plenty of not-quite on topic comments, and heaps and heaps of commentary on what the women were doing. if we looked at eachother we were communicating. hand gestures was not allowed, and got heckled. sylvia came in for lots of hassling, when she couldn’t reply. the work talked about anti discrimination and stereotypes, and i was not happy to be unable to contribute. there were lots of dubious comments and laughter, and one particular comment from a certain person sitting directly opposite me, about male florists and female mechanics, and how if there was an all-female auto mechanic business, it wouldn’t go well because noone would trust them. or something. i sat bolt upright and glared at him.
the third ten minutes, only the five most noisy people were allowed to speak. this included sylvia and the main offenders from the previous set. it continued largely as before, but sylvia could argue. she was unsupported however, so she couldn’t fight everything.
the fourth round those five had to stay silent. it was a farce; the sign holder had decided he had something that was worth saying, and we tried to shush him many times, but he refused to follow the rules. the rules we had all been following, which meant i had spent twenty minutes already forced to listen to his blather with no recourse. the other barred boys got in on the shushing, which was even worse. in the end, i raised my voice to approximate the total noise level we’d been having in the room, and commenced speaking, trying to shut him down by taking up all the verbal space. i had to go on and on, talking about how i would have to keep this up until someone else who was allowed to speak joined in, as that appeared to be the only way to keep others from assuming all the space. it worked a little, shutting him down, but everyone else decided that they had comments to make about this display. eventually the woman who was moderating that bit came to the party and opened her mouth, and asked me to read a passage. i dropped my voice down as low as i could considering i was shaking with adrenaline, and read. and then people listened!
many years ago, when i attended even more meetings than i do now, i was in one that was as noisy as usual. when katrina, the vice chair, dropped her voice to speak rather than raising it to compete, everyone stopped talking, leaned in and listened. i was amazed! i have always kept that in mind, and tried it a couple of times, but this was the first time it had worked.
at lunch time, i wanted to tell mr female-mechanics-are-ok-in-a-male-business that i don’t like his constant sexism. he actually approached me first, and it ended up as the two of us with the teacher for quite a while. he said he was using examples of prejudice to make a point; he didn’t mean anything against female mechanics. i told him that i appreciated that, but it wasn’t just the comment, it was the constant sexualised environment he was creating. i also talked about how examples have subtexts, and are read differently by different people, and his were fuelling the general environment in a way that i and other women were uncomfortable, and being prevented from talking as much as others. i didn’t say that if i were a female mechanic i would be delighted to work in an all-female company, and i think it would go very well indeed because there wouldn’t be a man for customers to view as better, and anyway there should be enough people who have trouble with male mechanics for us not to need the chauvenists. much was said, and i was very impressed by how he took it on and affirmed a commitment to do better on these issues, instead of belligerently repeating how it was all humourous, as i have been subjected to by so many people i’ve tried to explain things to. he was very quiet through lunch and all afternoon; i hope it was just lots of thinking. it would be very good if he becomes better on this, he acts like he is in charge wherever he is, and often enough it’s true. what’s more, i think he knows more about how to make things work at tafe than anyone else, and i hope to learn more from him.
interestingly, the one example of defensiveness in that exchange actually came from the teacher. i was explaining that i was a little uncomfortable with the heterocentricity of the environment, with a touch too many examples and questions about husbands and wives and children, and not enough talk about tafe student associations. and too much talk about restaurants, thanks to one person – but we all knew that! she acted a touch offended, saying, many times, that she didn’t realise her examples were a problem, they were just from her life. she took it like an attack on her, not a comment on the whole classroom and something to be aware of. after lunch she apologised beforehand for every comment she made that was personal. maybe she took half the point, but at least half was missed.
eventually we joined the others for lunch. i was much happy birthdayed, and my lunch was payed for. several people also came up to me and asked if i was ok, if i was very upset. it was because i had raised my voice. it was unexpected, from me, and lots of people thought it meant i was very upset. i had been a little upset, but that wasn’t the point! they hadn’t listened to the content, just the volume. is this always the case? the sign writer seems to have been leaned on to apologise, as he did, gracelessly; demanding to know if he had upset me, then cutting me off with his ‘well sorry if i did’. twice.
the afternoon was more subdued, between silence in one corner and apologies from the front (for herself and her examples, while she was talking about assertive behaviour no less) but possibly productive.
gender and schooling
this one is a short tut paper from gender and education, a third year ed course that i did in 2005.
“Gender and Schooling: Still making the Difference?” attempts to abridge to two pages the entire history of attention to gender in Australian schooling since 1975. Some interesting though disparate points are raised, such as noting the role that increased retention had to play in many education reforms which have implications for gender, and that cutbacks under economic rationalism have reduced the ability of state schools to provide many services which are used predominantly by boys. These however are only treated perfunctorily, by way of introduction to the meat of the argument, which is a sharp critique of the current ‘boys in education lobby’ and in particular its claims that boys are the new disadvantaged, and that they are a clear group with distinct, separate needs which must be met in the interests of equality.
The article breaks its analysis of the presented arguments into four equal points by way of numbered headings: 1. lack of attention to class and race/ethnicity, 2. the untheorised nature of the position, 3. internal contradictions, and 4. failure to recognise gender politics. Although each of these makes valid points, I would instead shuffle them to display two more methodical, comprehensive and illuminating problems with the boys’ lobby’s claims.
The first is that gender is seen as essential. This means that the binary opposition of male and female is seen not as artificial, constructed and changeable but as natural, fixed and all-encompassing. It also allows all girls to be understood as identical in certain ways, while boys must be identical to each other, and necessarily different to the girls. The differentiating effects of ethnicity and class are not taken into account, and though this article does not mention it, neither are those of differing ability, sexual preference, sexuality, experience, inclination or the perception of any of the above.
From such a problematic premise, many more conclusions are presented as perfectly natural. Of late people are anxious to deny overt sexism, but the current doctrine ‘different but equal’ isn’t far off in service to essentialism. The ‘fundamental platform of difference’ is countered with a symmetricality which, far from tempering it, obscures any opposing thought of the structural, historical and political disadvantage of girls, heavily theorised and evidenced by feminism and still being fought. This allows the playing field to be artificially set as equal, for a competition of victimhood fought on personal needs extrapolated to compulsory stereotypes, and conflated with failures which are only relative to each other. The lobby relies on this simplified view of the world to allow the subsuming of more complex feminist strategies as its own.
The second fundamental problem is with the remedies the lobby proposes. Notwithstanding the value of many of the initiatives for various students, each is an unconnected response to a symptom. In a ‘predictable hegemonic response to uphold traditional male advantage’, the underlying structures are not addressed; they promise to reveal disadvantage as a feature of almost any group but boys. And the solution to the problems of so many of those falling within the category ‘boys’? Not nearly so simple or so reassuring.
This article contains many important points on the structures and demands of contemporary arguments about the education of boys, though they are presented in haphazard connections. In doing so, it implies a way of considering the issues which may, more than just appraising the situation, help to remedy the problems which lie below the hype.
hardware terminology
It seems Dr. James Holsinger Jr. who bush is about to nominate as next Surgeon-General of the US, wrote a very homophobic article for the Committee to Study Homosexuality of the United Methodist Church. in it, he used a metaphor “In fact, the logical complementarity of the human sexes has been so recognized in our culture that it has entered our vocabulary in the form of naming various pipe fittings either the male fitting or the female fitting depending upon which one interlocks within the other.” Hugh Robertson tells us this, in a blog snippet i came across, and argues well the importance of holsinger keeping his views out of his public office. of the quote, however, he says ‘Now I do not propose to argue hardware terminology…’
now i do propose to argue hardware terminology. wow, in a blog i can expect you to hear me out, before you tell me that i’m being a bit silly and trivial.
as a student of mechanical engineering, i am under a constant bombardment of gendered context. i spend my days in a class full of teenage boys, listening to male teachers make ‘harmless’ jokes at their wives’ expense, then having them accost me in the break to tell me how much they love and respect their wives, because they saw me roll my eyes. the kid who wears the ‘lesbos, where every man wants to be’ tshirt every week, didn’t really understand why i was amused the first week, and really wouldn’t understand why i get irritated now. the graffiti on the tables is of penises. i pull people up on their use of ‘gay’ as a term of abuse, but the gendered insults are too thick and fast and besides, i’m getting to know these people, and want to get along with them. i’m in conflict as to whether it’s better when we are addressed as ‘ladies and gentlemen’ or just ‘gentlemen’, as these are often the choices. am i being included or singled out? the only female staff member teaches computers and communications, a subject from which i am exempt, and which is generally considered light weight. when i get top marks in something, my gender is commented on. sometimes the teacher is expressing pleasure at having a girl in the class. that kind of sex distinction can occasionally feel like a mitigating factor, until it turns out i’m expected to do better because i must be more careful. sometimes the expression is of suprise, which simply makes me feel dirty. i’d hate to think what would happen if i did badly at much.
and fittings which are useless without their counterparts, and categorically don’t fit with their equals, are named ‘male’ and ‘female’. just because it is entrenched doesn’t mean it is benign.
