There’s a piece in the Zambia Daily Mail by Zangose Chambwa called Work hard, First Lady tells women. The second sentence is as follows:
Mrs Banda said women should not wait to be appointed because of men feeling pity for them, but should showcase their hardwork.
And then:
“Zambia has women who have excelled in many fields, and it is cardinal for them to work extra hard and take up decision-making positions on merit,” she said.
Hmm. Well, I don’t know how accurately the first quote represents what Thandiwe Banda actually said, and I like the gist of a lot of what she says in the article, so my beef is not with her in particular. I’ve got to take issue with the second quote, or, rather, the narrative into which it is playing.
Is it important for decision-making positions to be taken up by those who merit them? Definitely: a nation needs competent decision-makers. My beef is with the idea that women are obliged to work ‘extra hard,’ to ‘showcase’ their efforts, in order to show everyone that they are worthy. I don’t think that women owe the world extra effort in order to make up for the shortfall of a system oppressing them. I think women should have to work the same amount as anybody, be as talented as anybody, to succeed.
It’s not that women aren’t working hard enough and don’t merit particular positions. It’s that, although a woman might be making the same amount of effort as other candidates, she doesn’t get the position because she is a woman. It’s not up to women to fix that; they’re already working hard. It’s up to the beneficiaries of gender gaps, that unfairness, to fix them: the men with those decision-making powers.
Implicit in the idea that women wait to be appointed ‘because of men feeling pity for them’ is the idea that women aren’t really worthy of those appointments, anyway, and that men are under no obligation to lift a finger in the name of gender equality. That’s not so. Women are simply waiting to be appointed.
Women are already working quite hard, thank you very much. It’s time to shift the obligation to make those efforts towards gender equality from those who have to make them to those who ought to be.
[...] Who has the power to fix the system here? — Feministe. Is it important for decision-making positions to be taken up by those who merit them? Definitely: a nation needs competent decision-makers. My beef is with the idea that women are obliged to work ‘extra hard,’ to ‘showcase’ their efforts, in order to show everyone that they are worthy. I don’t think that women owe the world extra effort in order to make up for the shortfall of a system oppressing them. I think women should have to work the same amount as anybody, be as talented as anybody, to succeed… It’s not up to women to fix that; they’re already working hard. It’s up to the beneficiaries of gender gaps, that unfairness, to fix them: the men with those decision-making powers [...]
Yes, absolutely this, I’m feeling this so hard (as a woman and as a trans* person), the demands to be a “model woman” and a “model trans person”. I’ve been told things along the line of “well, if you don’t like what organization X is doing, get on their board of directors!”, but of course, that’ll never happen, because I’m too loud and take up too much space for cis / male comfort. Thank you, Chally.
Let’s say we live in a world exact as we live now, except that it’s nonsexist. Now let’s presume there are 300 candidates for a decision-maker post, X male and Y female, with X + Y= 300. Assuming all of the 300 are at a equal level at “work hard” (you did not defined what this term especifies) and competence (including psychological health, etc.) What, in your opinion, would be the criteria? Would the fact that there are 300 equal candidates for only one post automatically implies injustice? Should subjective factors (the most good-looking, etc) taken into account be considered automatically unfair? At what level bias drive us always into mistake or injustice? As a new “member” of this blog (I don’t know how to say that in English) and as a Marxist, I would also like to know what you guys think about Feminism in capitalism – in other words, if you think the complete achievement of Feminism is possible within the actual Oligopolic Capitalism system (does not matter what brand of Feminism you are).
Ooh, look! Bruno mansplains it all for us.
With maths! and Marxism! And a conflation of competence with psychological health! And a hypothetical nonsexist world!
Sometimes I’m very sad that the term manarchist is so ideologically specific.
Let’s say a train which departed at 9:00am CST is traveling from northern Chicago to Mordor at 40mph. At the same time, a second train which is scheduled to arrive in Hawaii at 3:20pm EST is traveling 300mph but hits a flock of deer after 45 minutes and is delayed. Assuming that the velocity is constant, how much would you have to pay me to read your comment in its entirety? (does not matter what brand of Marxist you are)
About that women should showcase their work more: I think there is some truth in that. All too often, many women undervalue their own work and present a humble attitude, while the men go the other way.
There is a need to unlearn damaging behaviors that have been learned because they are culturally expected.
(Of course this will not solve all problems – as GallingGalla says an “aggressive” woman is often not accepted anyway. I also do not really know much about Zambian society…)
@GallingGalla and Li: Is Bruno really mansplaining anything in that post? If so, what?
@Bruno: I did not in fact manage to get any clear point at all from your post. I wonder whether that is due to your writing skill or my reading comprehension…
i lol’ed
It also puts a lot of pressure on women to expect them to be the beating heart of a happy home. Women in Zambia apparently have to work hard to qualify for positions of power while simultaneously bringing light and warmth wherever they go. It’s a common pro-woman position to emphasize our good qualities–that is, to emphasize that we are valuable to society–but those good qualities are often limited to the kind that John Ruskin found most important–woman’s ability to make men comfortable and raise happy children. It implies that females who are not kind and capable are not true woman.
Bruno, you lost me at “let’s assume.” Your hypothetical test is meaningless. Why don’t you do your part to help dismantle the very real and currently existing patriarchy and get back to us with your hypothetical example after that.
Guys, (except for the mental health part, which was obnoxious) I think Bruno was just saying: if you have 300 equally qualified candidates for a job, how fair is it to give the job to any one of them? A better question to me would be, regardless of qualifications, how fair is it to leave people unable to meet their basic needs while others are billionaires? As well as there being many more opportunities for the already-wealthy for getting those qualifications.
But that’s OT.
…..If black people didn’t work harder than their white competitors at some history breaking moments they would have never been given the chance to show they could do anything. Why would this not apply to sexism? If the idea is that *this* group* is inferior to *that* group, working just as hard proves nothing, doing just a smuch proves nothing, excelling at the same rate wont get much recognition. HOWEVER, when someone from *this* group “out excels” someone from *that* group it gains IMMEDIATE attention and it can not be ignored. Because if its a competition (like all efforts to gain a position of employment are amongst candidates) and you already have a bias for one candidate being jsut as good as the candidate who already has a foot in the door will NEVER help you. Only being just as good doesn’t prove that you deserved the job more, being better does. It removes the excuses and exposes the biases better than most anything else.
This question, “Who has the power to fix the system?” has been rolling around in my head for quite some time.
In terms of social power borne of privilege, clearly it’s the people “on top” who have the most power, but are they in the right position to use it? Being at the top of the tower you are trying to topple is a not a great location for leverage, not matter how long your lever.
I’ve been re-reading some of the psychological material on prejudice and prejudice reduction, and a theme that’s been emerging is the problem of focusing exclusively on the attitudes of dominant groups. Even if ostensibly the idea was that these were the “problem” attitudes that needed to be changed, it still centers the wrong voices (also problematic in terms of psychology’s highly individualistic theories of change) and misses out on crucial aspects of how social injustice and prejudice function in society. Much early research and theorizing was also done by white men, and the consequence of letting white men set the agenda for researching methods of social change resulted in some pretty damn narrow-minded approaches. For example, the most prolific and productive theory up until a few years ago was the contact hypothesis*, the idea that if we all just feel nicely toward each other, racism and social injustice will take care of itself. Finally some researchers have established that getting a white person to even genuinely like a non-white person, or even a whole group of non-white people, is not the same as getting them to support the politics of change, and that promoting harmony at the expense of conflict can function to preserve the status quo.
I’m not disagreeing with everything in this post, mind. I think Chally’s analysis is spot on. I’ve just been thinking about this question for a while and I’m just playing out some of my thoughts here about who is in the most powerful position for social change. That’s different from saying who has the responsibility for social change, though, and I’m trying to stay away from anything that reeks of victim-blaming (i.e., it’s up to the oppressed to unoppress themselves with no help from those with privilege). Still, I think that people with the problematic social power need to support change, but not be the source of it, for both philosophical and practical reasons.
*Word of warning, that’s not the best article. For one thing, I can’t understand why it’s attributed as a criminological and sociological theory only, when it was developed by a psychologist and is huge in psychological research. But you get the idea.
Ugh, upon re-reading that, it sounds antagonistic and not at all what I meant. I meant to convey that I’m not offering a critique of the current post so much as spinning off my own related thoughts and trying to delve more into the nuances of the question Chally asked in the post title. I’m not disagreeing with the post *at all*.
“Only being just as good doesn’t prove that you deserved the job more, being better does. It removes the excuses and exposes the biases better than most anything else.”
Second this and matlun’s comment about unlearning damaging behaviors. I think what Mrs. Banda may have been referring to with her “pity” comment is the socialization of women to believe that if you work hard enough, long enough, someone with the power to do so will notice and reward you — because self-promotion is all icky and unfeminine, you see. I havefallen into that trap myself.
There’s also the notion that you don’t wait for the people with the power to fix it, you simply don’t allow them to continue to fuck it up. Take the power to effect change into your own hands. Yes, that sometimes seems like victim-blaming, because sometimes it is used to victim-blame. Still, if I want to change things, I have to work harder to change them than the people who want stasis will have to work.
Yeah, I think this is the tension here. Asking people in power to give up their power doesn’t usually work (some might do so of their own volition, but it’s never enough). Removing their means of power seems more effective, but unfortunately it requires a *lot* of work and energy from those who are oppressed, and the systems of oppression are stacked against them so that they spend most of their energy dashing their heads against brick walls.
In the case of trans* folk, we are such a numerical minority (perhaps one out of 200 to 500 people) that we cannot by ourselves remove the means of power that cis people have set up for themselves; hence, we are continually in the position of begging cis LGB folk to support us. Despite occasional isolated successes in getting some cis LGB folk to commit time and resources to help trans* folk secure our rights, generally this approach has been a disaster for trans folk, with cis LGB folk usually siding with cissupremacism (for example, Barney Frank and HRC using arguments borrowed from fundamentalist christians in denying trans folk employment protections in ENDA – basically cis LGB people siding with the very heterosupremacists who want to eliminate them, in order to protect their own cissupremacism).
From the article: [FIRST Lady Thandiwe Banda] said women are the only ones who can brighten the world with the light of care and love.
Really? Men are incapable of care and love?
“Let’s say a train which departed at 9:00am CST is traveling from northern Chicago to Mordor at 40mph. At the same time, a second train which is scheduled to arrive in Hawaii at 3:20pm EST is traveling 300mph but hits a flock of deer after 45 minutes and is delayed. Assuming that the velocity is constant, how much would you have to pay me to read your comment in its entirety? (does not matter what brand of Marxist you are)”
Whoever said this, it would be nice if you make an apology, education and respect at least I deserve. Second, I did not used math, third, these kind of derail won’t make my point less important. But I’m glad to make it simpler for everyone.
If you say that white men dominate all science (filosofy included) and then you affirm that’s unfair, it’s one point. To say that it would be, in terms of quality (because spots on universities, labs or corporations doesn’t pop out from nowhere) of science (or progress, or whatever you think it’s good for our civilization), prejudicial to the same because white men dominate it, is a completely different assertion. The first says women just deserve equal opportunities to get the spots simply because they’re humans. The second says presence of women is obrigatory because they have a different vision, thus enlightning science and making it better. One does not exclude another, but the second need to be, for the irony of destiny, proved scientifically.
I personally don’t think that put more women in top jobs will make the world better (in the sense of quality of life), it’ll just make it more fair. The sole presumption that white male dominace in sciences (“sciences” in the most ample sense) makes sciences biased, or that women are the bastion of “care and love” (I don’t even know what the hell Thandiwe Banda meant with this expression) automatically implies that bias is inavoidable.
What I definetely don’t get it is when you say women “as a class”. Women are not a class in the Marxist sense of the term. And I know Feminism picked this term from Marxism.
@ Bruno
No – your analysis is simplistic in ways I can’t begin to enumerate (although if you’re lucky someone else here will have the energy to do so). I think it’s safe to say that you have not understood the points that have been made here. Some degree of that might be related to a language barrier and some degree of that may be related to differences in attitudes (what some of us would consider ignorance about the issues being discussed, although I’m not certain you would agree this is ignorance on your part). At the very least, I don’t think you’re going to find that you’ve made a convincing argument to the people who have already indicated disagreeing with you.
Bruno,
The respectful inclusion of varied perspectives and values makes all intellectual endeavors better. A single vision of the world warps the outcomes of research regardless of whether that research is scientific or philosophical. So yes, science would be better if women were a larger part of the scientific community, because it would give science a more balanced view of the human experience.
But more importantly, a more fair world, is by definition a better world. Even if all that was achieved by dismantling the kyriarchy was fairness, that would be reward enough.
@Bruno–
Before you dig yourself any deeper into that chasm you seem intent at excavating, I suggest you read Derailing For Dummies forthwith. Pay special attention to “If You Won’t Educate Me How Can I Learn,” “If You Cared About These Matters You’d Be Willing To Educate Me”, “You’re Being Hostile,” “You’re Not Being Intellectual Enough”, and “You’re Interrogating From the Wrong Perspective.”
For future reference, also keep the following in mind: It is not the job of marginalised people (to wit: women, for the purposes of this particular discussion) to educate you, a self-proclaimed white male, about white male privilege.
“For future reference, also keep the following in mind: It is not the job of marginalised people (to wit: women, for the purposes of this particular discussion) to educate you, a self-proclaimed white male, about white male privilege.”
That’s an Empyricist point of view. You can say all knowledgment one can have exclusively comes from your experience. You are, maybe without noticing, assuming that as a woman you have a privileged standpoint about who is the one being oppressed and who’s being privileged. That’s not necessarily truth, and, as far I can remember, many African women have criticized earlier forms of Feminism, because “women” are not a homogenous group (I’m just refreshing). Are you American (or UK, or another developed country)? Because I’m sure you too (in case of an affirmative answer) have much more “privilege” (to use your words) over the rest of the world (I’m Brazilian) than you might think.
Let’s put somethings clear: Patriarchy does exist, women are historically seen as inferior, etc. But I think this blog post is missing the real point. Is the system worth saving?
Extending the question, some points I would like to put for discussion:
If yes, will women save the system?
Is, given the actual system (Capitalism is a patriarchal system par excellence, although it doesn’t really needs men to perpetuate it, for example, a company might have the same profits having a female CEO than if it had a male one), even possible for women to ascend and achieve “equality”? What I know for sure is that poverty won’t end, on the contrary, it appears to be increasing.
Brazil actually have a greater concentration of wealth now than it had in it’s agrarian oligarchy age, when slavery still existed. I’m courious (and just courious) to know how do you Feminists conciliate this apparently paradoxal relation (no derail, just trying to expand de discussion) between the “emancipation of women” and increasing poverty in the world (please, let’s not put Malthus, directly or indirectly, into this question – nor the mith of meritocracy).
Hey, Bruno? You are derailing. You’re also being very rude in trying to redirect discussion on someone else’s thread, especially when other people have pointed out that you are missing the point and taking over the discussion here. Stop that or kindly leave the thread. And yes, multiple kinds of privilege and oppression are possible; one form doesn’t outrank another.
*true
I wanted to share this article from a couple of weeks ago, by Mary Ann Sieghart, who makes the point that nobody likes quotas, but they work.
From what I can tell, the systems aren’t broken and therefore don’t need ‘fixing’. Sexism *is* the system; so it is running perfectly fine. Without it there would be no capitalism (hat-tip to Bruno), no hierarchy in jobs, etc. Capitalism is entirely predicated on an un-paid class of workers (women)* who do the work that men would not/could not do while simultaneously working. Replacing men with women isn’t equality; it is tokenism.
*this is a rather crude statement, as it is obvious that race/racism serves the same purpose.
[...] diciendo que si nos ayudan no valemos para nada”), sino una deuda que se salda (por cierto, como comenta Chally (en inglés), la idea de que las mujeres ascienden por “pena” lleva implícita la [...]