subscribe: Posts | Comments

Women who don’t get it: sexism and the workplace

31 comments

Summary of story from Spiegel, October 13, 2011

Berlin has a new political party – the Pirate Party – which sprang to prominence in September, and which is made up largely of men.

This Pirate Party aims to embody a new style of politics, calling for more transparency and citizen involvement, grassroots democracy and politics that take advantage of the opportunities offered by the Internet.

It is meant to come across as fresh and modern. So is its rejection of gender warfare.

But critics are unconvinced by its “post-gender” politics and say the party will have to face the demographic dilemma if it wants to grow.

No one knows precisely how many women are in the party, but the number isn’t high, and Party conventions consist almost entirely of men sitting in front of their laptops.

Of the Pirates’ 15 representatives in the Berlin state parliament, only one is a woman, while the party’s executive committee includes two.

Unlike the established political parties, though, the Pirates see no need to make changes, and reject the idea of establishing a quota for women, something even Germany’s conservative Christian Social Union has implemented.

The Pirates aim to be “post-gender.”  They believe there can be no discrimination against women if gender doesn’t matter – no differences, no discrimination, no problem – and accept the party’s shortage of female members accordingly.

“We grew out of the Internet scene, and that happens to be dominated by men,” says party leader Sebastian Nerz.

Marina Weisband won her place at the table as the Pirates’ political director. Her job is to guide the party’s ambitions at the federal level.

A conversation with Ms Weisband about the “women question” is a strange thing, full of contradictions. She says she’s very feminine and never wears trousers, only dresses and skirts; she enjoys presenting herself as a woman.

At the same time she is a political director for a party that wants to make no distinction between genders. She doesn’t entertain the notion that she might have fared so well in the Pirate Party precisely because she is a young woman.

“It’s not as if all the Pirates just stare at my ass,” she says.

Like many women of her generation, Weisband at 24 believes men and women have the same opportunities everywhere because she herself has never experienced being treated differently.

Debates about gender seem old-fashioned to her, and she believes the real manifestations of gender differences arise when women are given preference because of them.

“I don’t want to be a quota woman,” she says.

Asked how politics can help eliminate inequality in the broader society, she says it’s simply necessary to raise awareness – “for example through educational programs on public television.”

WVoN comment: Oh dear, this doesn’t bode well at all. Women who refuse to recognise the sexism that comes with workplaces staffed and run predominately by men tend to be extremely self-centred and ultimately of no benefit to women’s rights. What do you think?

  1. I agree with WVoN, this does not bode well, and any organisation that claims to be ‘gender neutral’ or ‘post gender’ is ignoring the systemic, structural discrimination that continues to be faced by women, which prevents women from having real equality of opportunity in the workplace and elsewhere in society.

    Having one (or more) women on boards who do not get gender serves as a sort of alibi action – “we have women involved, what’s your problem?”. But if these women do not advocate for women’s rights, and do not understand gender power imbalances, they are reinforcing the patriarchal status quo.

  2. Hi Jackie – I find it ironic that this woman says she doesn’t want to be a ‘quota woman’ and yet she does not recognise that she is a ‘token woman’ being used to justify a post-gender stance.

    I am sure she really believes in what she is saying, but her attitude reflects a certain privileged stance – that of a white, middle class, protected female who has not (yet) had to experience sexism in any way.

    Meanwhile, thinking about language – post-gender? What kind of nonsense is that? Again another example of Orwell’s newspeak I think.

  3. vicki wharton says:

    I think this women’s voice is largely that of the younger generation of women brought up on porn and lads mags being cool. They’ve never heard feminism talked of in a positive light and see other women through men’s eyes – as objects that are either useful to them or of no relevance.

  4. vicki wharton says:

    These women look at other women from a male perspective brought about by being taught that lads mags and porn are cool – they view women as the men they hang out with do – as objects that are either useful or irrelevant to their lives.

  5. The Pirate Party is not so new. To the best of my knowledge, they’ve grown out of a dissatisfaction with the current government policies on most things technical, especially issues around digital copy-write and internet privacy etc.

    This is, unfortunately, still a largely male dominated area, so it doesn’t surprise me that this is a male dominated party. I absolutely agree with the point that it’s all well and good to present oneself as ‘post gender’ yet we know only too well that these things don’t balance themselves out naturally, so need a little (or a large) pro-active shove in the right direction. I am in favour of quotas and active encouragement for gender balance. The Pirate Party, as others have, will need to recognise this if they want to be serious players on the European political scene.

    However, I take some issue with the language of the original article. It’s quite patronizing to the party in general. “Given the party’s computer-nerd origins” and similar comments leave me feeling that there’s a subtext here that has nothing to do with the party’s attitude to gender and make me worry that this is just an attempt to find a valid reason to bash a party that threatens most of today’s modern media. I find this sentence particularly concerning. “She doesn’t entertain the notion that she might have fared so well in the Pirate Party precisely because she’s a young woman.” Would they have said that about a woman in any other male-dominated party? (which, lets be honest, is almost all of them) or is it because this is a party of ‘geeks’?

    I like the idea of a party that believes gender shouldn’t matter, even if I do agree with the article, that society isn’t quite there yet. Shouldn’t they be supported and encouraged to actually walk their talk? I would prefer that than undermining the few women who are getting involved in such a male dominated area?

    • Hi Jem, you make some good points: however a party that talks about post-gender and only has one or two women in it lays itself open to this kind of criticism which actually points to a level of naivety which doesn’t point to any proper thought going on in the party. Therefore, it cannot be taken seriously until it redresses this balance because it is not taking women seriously. However, I do take your point about the ‘geek’ angle, although the Geek Feminism blog often talks about the sexism inherent within the ‘geek’ communities that they have to deal with all the time, usually as the only woman in the IT department.

    • Hi Jem – I do take your point, but any party that talks about post-gender and only had one or two women in it does not inspire confidence in the party’s overall intellectual thought processes. Therefore, it cannot hope to be taken seriously until it redresses this balance. However, I do take your point about the ‘geek’ angle, but again, over at the Geek Feminism (http://geekfeminism.org/) blog, they talk constantly about the casual sexism they experience from the geek community,whether it be at work as the only woman in the IT department, or at Sci-fi/comic conferences where women are routinely portrayed as comic versions of Pamela Anderson.

  6. Absolutely agree, as I said, they need to think again about their policy. It’s a nice theory, but we know it doesn’t work. So they need to wake up to that. I hope they do, as their core messages are valid.

    I read Geek Feminism and having grown up amongst the geek fraternity I know that it has its fair share of sexism, especially when women are such a rarity. But as it’s an area also generally populated by educated, well read men I think it’s a group that are more inclined to respond well to feminist issues. And, in my experience, harbours the odd male feminist (if you believe in such a creature!).

  7. The only people who believe that gender doesn’t matter are those whose gender doesn’t matter. Imagine a bunch of white men announcing that they’re ‘post-race’. Well, gee, how great for them. They’d be – rightly – laughed out of the building.

  8. Actually, I don’t agree. We’re not there yet, but wanting gender to not matter isn’t a bad thing. It shouldn’t. Women and men should be equal, colour of skin shouldn’t create glass ceilings.

    It’s naive to say it doesn’t matter to us and that’s enough to make it not matter to society and it’s debatable exactly what the men in this article believe. But aspiring to a world where one’s gender does not make one ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than another’s is something I think we should support.

    • Jane Da Vall says:

      They don’t want gender not to matter, they want gender discrimination not to matter. It doesn’t matter to them but then they are men, why should it? Self interest is a basic motivator.

  9. Karen Whiteley says:

    Of course gender shouldn’t matter but it’s a very basic point that it’s not for the dominant gender to declare that it no longer does. Just as it would not be for the dominant race to declare that racism is just so last week.

  10. Jane Da Vall says:

    “I like the idea of a party that believes gender shouldn’t matter, even if I do agree with the article, that society isn’t quite there yet. Shouldn’t they be supported and encouraged to actually walk their talk? I would prefer that than undermining the few women who are getting involved in such a male dominated area?”

    This is pretty naive, or disingenuous. These men are not fools, Germany has less women in the boardroom even than the UK and quotas are under serious consideration. This group oppose quotes. That is their manifesto, nothing more, they certainly are not the pioneers of a gender-blind future. They are discrimination-blind, and why should that be a surprise? Self interest is the most basic of motivators. As for the woman who cannot imagine anyone having a different experience to her own, well, I hope life doesn’t disabuse her of that complacent narcissism too quickly.

    The article almost reads like a parody, but you see the ‘gender doesn’t matter anymore’ claim often. Well it never did to a lot of people, Saying it makes it so, apparently, especially if you don’t care if y wrong, that’s only an effective strategy if you don’t mind being wrong. All it means is gender inequality doesn’t matter to these men and why should that be surprising? Self interest is a fairly basic motivator.

    • I would say they are discrimination blind among their ranks, but I think you’re being too dark. Discrimination blind is quite different from wanting discrimination. I also think that it’s not as simple as self interest or not caring. I think a lot of it is a defensive reaction to feeling accused of something you don’t identify as.

      • vicki wharton says:

        I do think that all of us have a duty of care to check ourselves for prejudice. Its lazy and self supporting to say that a person is discrimination blind is to say that they are disinterested in the world in which they operate and the biases they uphold. Apartheid would never have been dismantled if whites hadn’t done some internal questioning of the system and their part within it.

      • Jane Da Vall says:

        “Discrimination blind is quite different to wanting discrimination”

        Not to the the victim.

        • Ok, so should we bundle people who mean well but doesn’t understand, with people who hate women? How will that improve things?

          • vicki wharton says:

            Why don’t you start coming up with some solutions rather than defensively saying that people mean well who can’t be bothered to self police their own thought processes. I’m not so sure that people who ignore prejudice around them because it doesn’t affect them do mean well as such. I think you’re confusing indifference with ignorance.

          • I’m very sure that people who ignores prejudice around them because it doesn’t affect them doesnt mean well. Pretty clear case really.
            And when did I say that meaning well is the same as not being bothered to self police your thought process? Choosing to not check yourself is a pretty clear stand for discrimination, in my opinion.
            Also not sure how I’m being defensive. I talked about being defensive in a previous comment, is that what you’re referring to?
            And no, I’m not confusing indifference with ignorance. I’m saying there is a difference. Indifference is bad, ignorance is curable. If we think someone is indifferent they deserve our scorn. If we think they’re ignorant, we should inform them. Or am I being silly for stating the obvious?

          • Jane Da Vall says:

            Daniel,
            That was a defensive responsive. It might help if you attempted to look at things from another perspective, and, as Vicki, said, try to be constructive. You are very focussed on these men, rather than on those who suffer from discrimination. How can you judge equality legislation if you have not considered the position of the those it is intended to assist?

            We don’t need to make any judgement of the people in this party, we need to consider what they have said, and if it is correct, Clearly it is not. Discrimination still exists, to ignore it is to allow it to continue and we want it to end, don’t we. So we will take active measures against it and this is how we improve things.

      • Discrimination blind can be as oppressive as active discrimination as when the victim tries to point out that they are being discriminated against, the ‘discrimination blind’ party can claim ‘well we are gender neutral!’ which can have the effect of silencing and marginalising women who wish to point out its male biases.

        Men often become defensive when sexist practices are pointed out to them, and may wish not to identify with these; however, as long as most men remain defensive rather than actually examining the gendered patterns that support women’s social, political, economic inequality, and then choosing to actively work against this sexism, then they are colluding in the patriarchal system from which they, as a member of the privileged gender, benefit.

    • “we know only too well that these things don’t balance themselves out naturally, so need a little (or a large) pro-active shove in the right direction. I am in favour of quotas and active encouragement for gender balance. The Pirate Party, as others have, will need to recognise this if they want to be serious players on the European political scene.”

  11. vicki wharton says:

    Hi Daniel
    I think you are giving a lot of people the benefit of the doubt when they don’t deserve it. Laddism has bred a generation of people, men and women alike, who think it’s cool to be abusive to girls and women by calling them bitches and sluts, to slag them off physically, to cheat them and cheat on them, to dump them with children they didn’t agree to single parent and to constantly judge them prejudicially until they prove themselves innocent. If you want to see this for yourself, go onto any female orientated story on Guardian on Line and post as an equality minded female. And that’s just the Guardian. I think you’re naive about what it is to be a female in 2010 Britain thanks to the likes of the Daily Star, The Sport, Loaded, Nuts, Zoo and the host of on line and on screen porn sites that refer to women purely in terms of their sexual value to men only, and mainly by terms that are abusive at best.

    • Since you ignored my questions as well as my points I’m tempted to do the same, but I’ll behave.
      I am well aware of laddism but I’m not talking about it. I have talked about people who don’t like it, but are naive about their own role and also about laddism. So I am a bit offended by the lecture. I’d rather you told me why you think I think we should overlook laddism.
      We can have a discussion about laddism of course, but since I think we agree on most of it I’m not sure where to start.

      • vicki wharton says:

        I’m sorry if you’re offended by the lecture, it wasn’t meant as such but more stating a set of facts that lead to blind prejudice. I haven’t ignored your questions, simply answered them in generalised terms. I don’t know how we counter ignorance that is wilful and whilst you may not be referring to laddism, I reference it since it has been one of the mainstays of promoting gender discrimination under the disguise of ‘ironic humour’. I got the impression that you were ignoring laddism when you state that whilst you are aware of laddism in the media, you are not talking about it – leading me to believe you are overlooking laddism. That was my take on your comments anyway.

  12. Hi, I sent a response to this post this morning, but I think it must have got lost in the ether.

    What I said was along the lines of:
    any organisation that declares itself to be gender blind, or ‘post gender’ is ignoring the vast structural inequalities that women continue to face, which is almost as oppressive as being overtly discriminatory, particularly as women who raise gender issues are often silenced and marginalised by the ‘we are all post gender now’ rhetoric.

    In my experience many men get defensive when sexism is pointed out to them – even men who declare themselves to be anti-sexist. What most men do not appear to understand is that even though some men do not practice sexism, all men benefit from gender privilege. Gender is a critical element of power and inequality. women’s gender roles are generally accorded less political, economic, social and cultural value than those of men. So, for instance, most executive boards have few women, MPs continue to be predominantly men. Men do not, in general, have to battle to be taken seriously as men, to be listened to, as men, to be treated with respect, as men. Women continue to be trivialised, seen and treated as sexualised objects, subjected to gender based violence, to not be taken seriously in many areas of social life, and to have their voiced gendered needs dismissed as ‘special pleading’.

    As long as men get defensive about this when it is pointed out to them, and do not examine the way they hold gender power, and take action to address this, those men are colluding in the sexist system.

    WVoN brings to our attention, on a daily basis, the injustices, violence, and discrimination that women face, systematically and continually, in the UK and all over the world. Yet, with only one or two exceptions, the men who comment on this site invariably do so to defend their gender, to argue that most men do not behave like this. The evidence of women’s oppression is all around us. When will men start taking responsibility for the structural causes of this?

    • ‘even though some men do not practice sexism, all men benefit from gender privilege’. Good point Jackie – for me this means that they have a responsibility to recognise this and do something about it at the very least.

    • I think you answered your own question. As long as we men have a defensive reaction it’s going to be hard work. Which of course is why qoutas are important. So many don’t understand, or don’t want to understand, concepts like structural discrimination or value discrimination. Maybe the world we live in are promoting easy answers so most aren’t equipped to get it. Doesn’t want to take the time to think about it. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard arguments like “but there ARE gender differences, we can’t just ignore that”, “why should we punish men?”, “The gender gap is a myth, women just choose jobs with lower wages” etc.

      • So what would your suggestions be towards changing this state of affairs, Daniel? Do you think you are in a position to use gender privilege as a force for good, gaining you more chances to get the message across to your peers?

        • I’d like to think so. When dealing with someone who has already decided that women are attacking them, they may see an ally in a man. Or atleast not be as defensive.
          For my part I mainly act and talk about it as if it’s obvious, that anyone who doesn’t see it is missing something. Of course sometimes you actually have to explain to people that it’s not about killing all men. It’s remarkable to me that people still think it’s about forcing their son to wear pink. So you have to lift their gaze away from the micro level to see the big picture and that is the hard bit. Perhaps I’m naive but I feel that society cared more about the big pictures before, whereas today we are just looking at what’s in front of our nose. Just get the next Ipad and everything will be fine. and if you get the pink one you’re doing your part for gender equality.

    • Yep, I see that defensiveness a lot. Couple with sighs and eye rolls and ‘Oh no not *this* again’ protestations, as if the man concerned can ignore the problem into non-existence. (So this would be why a lot of equality-minded people become frustrated with the situation, just as a by-the-by)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *