Why any woman in the UK would ever vote Conservative is completely beyond me.I replied smugly, wondering if Mrs P (who I know votes in this way) could perhaps see something that they could not?
I was told, in reply, that clearly Mrs P has concerns other than the dire impact of incoherent policy making on women. That made me wonder. Does Mrs P have to see all issues purely from a woman's perspective? It would seem, according to Marie J and Elaine Chalus, that the answer to this is a resounding "yes":
Any woman who considers herself a person in her own right, should then also be able to understand the impact of policies on her own life, and thus be able to judge appropriately. That necessitates evaluating policies in terms of gender.(Elaine Chalus)
Snap. I'd argue the same for any group unfairly affected by policy. Emphasis on *unfairly*.(Marie J)
What this is saying to me is that, given that she is a woman, my wife must see all policies purely in terms of their effect on women. All policies must be evaluated in terms of gender. She must therefore identify herself as a woman only. She may not (or should not?) look at a party's policies in the round, to identify whether, in her opinion, they would be beneficial to the country as a whole. She must look at the effect of a party's policies on women only.
I think this is sexist. I think this belittles women.
I think this says, in effect, that women should not worry themselves over complex stuff like international finance, national debts, deficit financing, the proper level of government intervention in the economy, and so on. It is dangerously close to saying that women shouldn't worry about such things, they should leave them to the men - after all, men will at least understand them. Just vote on the basis of which parties will offer childcare vouchers. Don't fret your pretty little heads over the complex stuff.
Now, be absolutely clear; I reject that view entirely. Simple experience has taught me that men can be utterly hopeless at such issues while women can be instinctively good at them, and I have seen it often enough in my day-to-day life. In my opinion:
- women are just as capable of understanding and holding a considered opinion on issues that are non-gender-related
- women are not inclined to take a paranoid approach that regards every issue as intrinsically gender-biassed
- women are perfectly capable of seeing the wider picture, seeing the effect of a set of policies on the country as a whole - not just from their own narrow perspective.
I am surprised to find myself (seemingly) being contradicted in this view by two apparently intelligent women. Now, it is important for me to acknowledge that I may have misunderstood the views expressed - if so then I invite Marie and Elaine to set me right, which they can do here free from the constraints of 140 characters. If I have misunderstood, however, then Marie and Elaine may wish to reflect on how they communicate their views!
Mind you, if I understood correctly, and if this view is widely held, then it does at least explain how Labour managed to gain and keep so much support.
OK, Elaine Chalus has replied via Twitter. It would be unfair to allow my post (above) to stand in isolation, so I am pasting her reply below:
ReplyDelete@patently Hmm ... if you really believe that considering the gendered impact of policies means that women should be limited to issues of childcare, etc., then you've missed the point entirely. Gender goes far beyond biology; it is (as defined by Joan Scott) 'the social construction of sexual difference' and it is inextricably interlinked with questions of power & thus with the constitution of the structures of power and authority in society itself. By my thinking, that opens all issues (international finance included) to fruitful and more politically sophisticated forms of analysis and consideration. If more people did that, we might end up with better -- particularly fairer -- policies, too.
Now, that is a welcome clarification, that she does not believe that women should be limited to certain aspects of policy. I would agree in that respect.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there remains the view that women should view all policies from a female perspective, which I find patronising toward them. There is now also the assertion that the female perspective is intrinsically better and fairer than the male, which I find insulting and sexist.
There is also a more serious issue. If you will allow me a brief diversion, there is a concept in intellectual property law (my specialism) called the "Non-enabling Disclosure". A disclosure normally knocks out any later patents for the same idea, unless the disclosure is "non-enabling". This is the case if the disclosure merely sets out an (perhaps obviously desirable) end that is to be achieved without stating how it was allegedly achieved. In other words, if I were to publish that I had found a cure for cancer, without any further detail, that would not preclude future researchers from obtaining a patent for a cancer cure, nor would it be enough to entitle me to a patent. It is, in short, a bullshit detector for Patent Offices.
My instinctive response on reading Elaine Chalus's reply is to call "non-enabling". How do you analyse international finance from a female perspective? What different forms of policy would that create? Would they be comprehensible to men? If so, how can they be exclusively female approaches? If not, are you not justifying sexism - in both directions?
So I am not persuaded.
Hmm ... we seem to have come a long way from a quick retweet this morning! The problem we are having here seems largely to have arisen from talking at cross purposes. I don’t think we’re actually all that far apart.
ReplyDeletePatently is understanding ‘gender’ as if it was a simple synonym for ‘woman/women’, which it isn’t. When I’m talking about gender, I’m doing so from my perspective as a historian. Apologies if this is old hat, but I’m thinking about gender as a conceptual tool that looks at the social construction of sexual difference — including the assignment of specific character traits by sex and/or group (e.g., straight/gay, majority/minority) — and what this means/has meant in structuring our society. For a brief and not evenly developed, but still useful, explanation of the relationship between gender and power see here: http://family.jrank.org/pages/687/Gender-Interaction-between-Gender-Power.html
Gender helps historians and social scientists understand the various forms of masculinity and femininity that operate within a society, and why and how some are privileged over others. It throws light on pervasive societal expectations and assumptions about men’s and women’s natures, and how these are embedded in constructed gender roles. This has social, political, economic and cultural implications.
Gender is a valuable tool of political analysis precisely because it allows us to go beyond the limitations of so-called ‘women’s issues’ and look more intently at the wider, relational nature of society itself. It allows both men and woman to uncover the underlying framework of ideas and assumptions upon which political parties operate and to interrogate specific policies. What, for instance, are the gendered assumptions at work in a policy? What implications will it have for women, for men, for minority groups? Who will gain? Who will lose? What contribution will the policy make to the betterment of society? This kind of thinking has nothing to do with dubious sex-based superiority on either side, but, I would hope, a good deal to do with the creation of a more active, engaged and politically astute citizenry (male and female) — and a fairer, more egalitarian, integrated society.
This kind of thinking has nothing to do with dubious sex-based superiority on either side, but, I would hope, a good deal to do with the creation of a more active, engaged and politically astute citizenry (male and female) — and a fairer, more egalitarian, integrated society.
ReplyDeleteI think it may do the opposite. The language of gender has often been used as a political weapon, accompanied by manichean misandrist assumptions. The result, quite simply, is that it puts men's backs up and makes them defensive. That is, it becomes exactly about men and women and thus any real discussion get shut down. This may in part have contributed to the crossed-purposes with Patently (though I'm not sure, it certainly looks like it is about women from the start).
Who will gain? Who will lose? What contribution will the policy make to the betterment of society?
If one wishes to make that general point, why is gender a particularly helpful tool?
It throws light on pervasive societal expectations and assumptions about men’s and women’s natures, and how these are embedded in constructed gender roles.
I think it gives voice to such expectations and assumptions as well. Notice how the conclusion is assumed rather than proved (shouldn't it read "how these may be embedded in constructed gender roles"
In short, I think the language of gender, to achieve these ends just becomes unclear, confusing and confrontational. There must be better approaches if one wishes to make "a fairer, more egalitarian, integrated society." It also enables some to control what the word "women" names as in:
Why any woman in the UK would ever vote Conservative is completely beyond me.
I can't see much point in voting full stop, just the red or blue wings of the middle aged homeowners party.
ReplyDeleteI'm far better off just getting on with my prosecution reports. Doesn't matter if the councillor is red, blue, yellow or green. If I sniff out a good case they're all equally happy to have their name and quote under the headline.
"I was told, in reply, that clearly Mrs P has concerns other than the dire impact of incoherent policy making on women."
ReplyDeleteBecause Labour policy making wasn't incoherent and shambolic..?
/facepalm
Presumably men are allowed to evaluate policies purely in the male context.
ReplyDeleteAnd who is going to evaluate policies from a family or a child's point of view?
To look at policies only from one aspect, is to my mind, nothing more than extreme selfishness, but is typical Labour'
Mrs EP takes the view that women's lib has probably done women more harm than good and takes exactly the same view about Labour as Elaine does about the Conservatives, "Why any woman ........ should vote Labour ......".
But then we both vote UKIP.
Well, I've given it some time and I remain of the view expressed above. At a practical level, to the extent that a gender-based approach is meaningful, I disagree for the reasons that Albert puts forward, and to the extent that I find it inoffensive, it appears meaningless. At a theoretical level, I find it flawed, as noted above.
ReplyDeleteI can see its value as an analytical tool in seeking to understand past decisions, to appreciate why history took the course it did. I'm not sure where that gets us, though. Are we meant to learn from that, and not approach future issues from a gender-specific basis, by learning (and lauding) an exclusively feminine approach?
As an aside, I'm not in fact seeing gender as a simple synonym for ‘woman/women'. I see it as meaning a specifically male or specifically female, but not both. However, when it is asserted as a way forward, as a departure from the traditional patriarchal approach to affairs, then it is intrinsically given a feminine meaning - but not by me.
And then, there is the problem of where it leads. Now, I'd wholeheartedly support the development of "a more active, engaged and politically astute citizenry" - the trend of British politics towards a disengaged, disinterested electorate has, in my opinion, been very harmful. Meanwhile, "a fairer, more egalitarian, integrated society" is one of those uniformly good things that no-one could object to but which everyone seems to define differently. But it always seems that gender politics leads to the same kind of divisive left-wing authoritarianism. The kind that could feel free to say something like, for instance, "Why any woman in the UK would ever vote Conservative is completely beyond me".
Hmm ... we seem to have come a long way from a quick retweet this morning!
As an aside, that is what I love about Twitter...
it always seems that gender politics leads to the same kind of divisive left-wing authoritarianism
ReplyDeleteYes, I think it is a distinct pity that we haven't heard back from the original tweeters. Of course, there are any number of reasons why they haven't replied further, but certainly, if someone critiqued Catholicism as we have critiqued "genderism" here, you would have heard back from me!
Among the points that have been made, have been that this kind of ideology is ill-suited to the stated purpose. And that gives the impression that the wider issues that gender is supposed to help us with, are just a smoke-screen, an attempt to give a naked feminist power-bid a little legitimacy and wider appeal.
But the power-bid nature of this discussion was evident from the beginning:
@patently Hmm ... if you really believe that considering the gendered impact of policies means that women should be limited to issues of childcare, etc., then you've missed the point entirely.
Now no one on this blog would accuse me of being uncritically supportive of Patently when he is talking patent rubbish, but is that really a fair and intelligent representation of Patently's comment? It looks to me like an attempt to shut him down before the discussion goes on too far.
Of course, it may be that I am misunderstanding the whole thing - but that would rather prove than disprove the point I am making.
Of course, there are any number of reasons why they haven't replied further,
ReplyDeleteYes, I wouldn't want any inferences to be drawn from that. Time has passed, other matters may be more pressing, Elaine may have been lucky enough to get one of those "life" things... ;-)
Now no one on this blog would accuse me of being uncritically supportive of Patently
Heaven forbid (sometimes, I suspect, literally).
smoke-screen
Yes, that is the nub of what concerns me here.
When the approach is being justified, there is a gentle and softly-spoken call to take different gender-related ways of thinking into account, in ways that are however difficult to pin down and be specific about. Who could possibly object...?
Then, when we look at the outward effect of this, we have a tweet which ORDERS ALL WOMEN TO VOTE LABOUR OR YOUR SANITY IS IN QUESTION.
ORDERS ALL WOMEN TO VOTE LABOUR OR YOUR SANITY IS IN QUESTION.
ReplyDeleteOr your womanhood presumably (assuming you are a woman).
This is where EP is probably on to something: the view that women's lib has probably done women more harm than good
Feminism has tended to make women who just want to look after their families feel like failures, as if there is something wrong with them. Yet the opinion formers of this movement in particular look decidedly unhappy in their own skin to me. Look at someone like Simone de Beauvoir - rather a tragic and apparently dishonest person, who would be called a paedophile today. Not really someone who ought to be making other women feel guilty about themselves.
But feminists have enabled precisely such a response. Result: some women have felt forced out to work and felt like failures in the thing that mattered to them most - their families.