• Activity
  • Votes
  • Comments
  • New
  • All activity
  • Showing only topics with the tag "misogyny". Back to normal view
    1. Seeking advice: How have you navigated misogyny in the workplace?

      After a recent incident I've had with a male colleague at work this past week, I feel lost and downtrodden on how to move forward in my career. I've experienced various forms of misogyny in most...

      After a recent incident I've had with a male colleague at work this past week, I feel lost and downtrodden on how to move forward in my career. I've experienced various forms of misogyny in most roles I've held, but this has been the worst offense I've encountered. It honestly has me sick with stress and I feel so alone in how to handle it.

      For context, I am often the only woman on meetings and regularly have to lead groups of all men. I've done this all throughout my career and have accepted it as a norm. While I have encountered issues in the past, never anything as egregious as what I dealt with the other day. I am often having to verify and source technical information to ensure project items are on track and this requires me to connect with various individuals. When some recent concerns were brought forward for an ongoing project, I was continually given the runaround by this male colleague. Due to days passing and the lack of cohesion for the issue of concern, I attempted to have a group discussion amongst the relevant folks.

      This action sent that male colleague into an absolute rage of which I was the target. An action that I have regularly done for months without issue and is a run-of-the-mill thing for communication was misinterpreted by him. Instead he viewed it as an attack and ran to my lead to accuse me of running to higher-ups to assert he isn't doing his work properly; a completely opposite story from what I had done. This male colleague proceeded to yell at me like an abusive ex and is proceeding with excluding me out of important discussions. My lead is also male and due to this male colleague running to him first, he sided with him when I attempted to connect about how I was treated. When talking with both men to explain or try to understand their perspective, I was continually talked over, hushed, and essentially silenced into submission. I was told I am now a risk to team cohesion and that I am causing problems when I have been receiving nothing but praise from all others for my work.

      I'm honestly so distraught from this experience and the lack of support from my lead. Each meeting with the male colleague that screamed at me has me on edge and I feel sick when determining how to get the answers I need for my work. Instead I am having to find a way to get placed on another project and the stress of sorting this with my company's HR. My confidence in my capabilities feels wounded and I am filled with anxiety now even when talking about topics I am familiar with. I am struggling to move past this and have the energy to find something better.

      For those of you who have experienced similar misogyny in the workplace, how did you overcome incidents like these? How did you stop feeling so broken by how it affected you? I'm so worried about landing another project or job that will have these same issues and I really don't know if I can take being treated by men like this in the professional world anymore. How do you interview or gage a company to determine you won't encounter this again? I am so bitter of continually seeing men have this behavior, yet have been rewarded in their careers by being elevated to positions of authority. Any advice, sharing of wisdom, or any support would be greatly appreciated.

      45 votes
    2. „Hating Men is a freeing form of hostility”

      When Pauline Harmange published her Essay “I hate men” (in French: “Moi, les hommes, je les déteste”) – the first edition with only 400 copies printed by a small French publisher – the 25 years...

      When Pauline Harmange published her Essay “I hate men” (in French: “Moi, les hommes, je les déteste”) – the first edition with only 400 copies printed by a small French publisher – the 25 years old blogger and author expected, that only feminist activists would be interested in it.
      But then Ralph Zurmély, an advisor of the French Ministry for Equality, read the text and publicly threatened Harmange with a lawsuit for “Inciting Hatred”. The ministry quickly distanced itself, but the public had already gotten wind of the manifest. For the author, this meant a flood of insults and threats over social networks, but also attention from international publishers. Her book is now being translated into ten languages; in German it is being published by Rowohlt. At this point, the 25 year old can laugh about Zurmélys threat, “because it proves my thesis beautifully”, she says on the telephone.

      ZEIT Campus ONLINE: Feminists worldwide are justified in defending themselves against all forms of misogyny, the hatred of women. Now you are advocating for hating men. Fighting hate with hate, can that be a good idea?

      Pauline Harmange: Now, hating men and hating women are not the same thing. Behind misogyny, the hatred of women, there is a system, which is extremely dangerous and violent in many ways. Misandry, hating men, is a way for women to protect and defend themselves from the violent behaviour of men. It is a counter-reaction. There would not be a need to dislike or hate men, if hating women would not systematically exist. Men are in many ways simply a danger to our life.

      ZEIT Campus ONLINE: But does that justify a general hate against men, all men?

      Harmange: For me and a lot of other feminists men form a social class. The phrase “I hate men” means that I hate the social group of men, because of all the privileges that they enjoy. I’d like to tell everyone that it is okay and important to be tired of this group. Misandry is a freeing form of hostility, and it covers a wide range of emotions and needs: It can mean, that we publicly fight against the violence of men against women. It can also mean personal consequences, like making the decision to not meet with men anymore and not trust them. All those things are okay and legitimate.

      ZEIT Campus ONLINE: Is it not more important to differentiate, which men and which behaviours are problematic?

      Harmange: When we take the time and effort, to exactly decide which men are good and bad, we lose a lot of our feminist energy, which we need in the fight against the patriarchy. The “Not all men” argument isn’t a strong enough answer for the systematic oppression which women experience through men. When we as feminists say, that we hate all men, that doesn’t mean that we don’t make any differences.

      ZEIT Campus ONLINE: Which differences do you mean?

      Harmange: Picture the system of misogyny like a pyramid. On top we have a few extremely violent men. Under that comes a large portion of men, which can be good, for example to the woman that they love. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t live in a misogynist system and support it in other ways. For example if they make sexist jokes or speak badly of women with their friends.

      Zeit Campus ONLINE: You are married to a man and have male friends. How do you live with the contradiction, hating all men, but loving one and liking some?

      Harmange: That is not a contradiction. I’m only married to a man, because we grew together as people. I live in a relationship which allows me to be the person I want to be. But yes, it was tiring to become a feminist and kind of take my husband with me during that process. I don’t know if I could do that again with a different man. My husband and my male friends know, what I mean when I say that I hate men or “men are trash”. They understand, that masculine ideals are not good for themselves or society. Only because one dislikes men as a social group, does not mean that one cannot have individual, very good relationships to men. The prerequisite for that however is, that you have men in front of you who are ready to listen and understand.

      ZEIT Campus Online: You don’t seem to have a lot of faith in the introspection of men. In your text you write that behind every man that takes an interest in gender equality, “there are multiple women which have opened his eyes with hard work.”

      Harmange: It is very frustrating for me and a lot of other feminists that men don’t use any of their time to learn anything about gender equality. A lot of women don’t get the choice but learn about the topic of sexual violence, for them it is only a choice of life or death. They have to learn to protect themselves. We get taught from small age to always learn and better ourselves to find a place in society. Men don’t feel that need. They grow up with the idea, that they are good the way they are. For them it is easier to say “I don’t hate women, I treat my girlfriend well, I’m one of the good ones.” That’s not enough, because it’s not just about the women they love. Men have to think about privileges and the system of oppression of women through men.

      ZEIT Campus ONLINE: But if you advocate misandry, wouldn’t the opposite happen? Wouldn’t men feel appalled by feminist discourse and stop taking an interest in it?

      Harmange: I find this idea horrible, that men have to feel liked by women to be interested in the feminist fight and gender equality. We don’t have the time or energy to convince men or give them a good feeling just to hope that they maybe do something for us. This inequality between the genders exists since hundreds of years, thousands of smart things have been said and written about it. Now it’s one the men to take an interest in it. By motivating themselves. It can’t be, that this interest is only done for their girlfriends.

      ZEIT Campus ONLINE: What does that mean for you? Do you not talk to your male friends about gender equality?

      Harmange: I’m ready to discuss with individuals I like and where I know that they want to learn and be better. But I won’t be a teacher for men in general. It is extremely tiring and gives me no benefit.

      ZEIT Campus ONLINE: What about a man who takes interest in gender equality and wants to do something? What can he do?

      Harmange: There’s a feminist influencer on Instagram which I really like, @irenevrose, and she wrote “When men ask me what they can do for the feminist fight, I always say: Watch the kids while your girlfriends go take part in demonstrations.” Even when the women in their surroundings aren’t activists, men should ask themselves: How can I support them and help? It’s important that men don’t push themselves into the foreground. It’s not their fight and not their stage.

      ZEIT Campus ONLINE: But isn’t it important that men call themselves feminists in public and talk about gender equality, so the work doesn’t just stay with the women?

      Harmange: Men who call themselves feminist in public often sadly want to be the star of the show. Many of them want to get compliments, without ever asking themselves: “When have I benefited from my male privilege? How did I treat the women in my life?” There was surely problematic behaviour at some point. If a man is serious about his fight against the patriarchy, he has to start with himself. And his friends. Men can talk with friends about how to treat women and can criticise it, when someone makes a sexist joke or comment. That’s much more important than any kind of interview or text, in which a man celebrates himself as an exemplary feminist.

      ZEIT Campus ONLINE: Back to the hate on men: Which social vision is connected to this? If you think it through – do we really want to live in a society, where all women hate men?

      Harmange: I think the chance, that we wake up tomorrow in a matriarchy, in which all women hate men is fairly small (laughs). But seriously: We women know how hard it is to be oppressed in a society and treated harshly. All women have lived through it at some point. We wouldn’t wish that experience on anyone. To think, that from critical feminist discourse a matriarchy would arise which oppresses men is a too simple view on the subject. I see this fear of men of man-hating, female wielders of power as admitting their own wrong behaviour.

      ZEIT Campus ONLINE: How do you mean?
      Harmange: Well, they seem to think that systematic oppression of women in the patriarchy for hundreds of years could evoke a strong counter reaction. The best thing would be to reflect on this fear and ask yourself: In which society do I want to live? A lot of men would conclude that the patriarchy hurts them too. Of course, in the first step they lose the as naturally viewed confirmation from women. But in the second step they gain a new equality between the genders. Men and women would learn to be more honest to each other, in their relationships as well.

      ZEIT Campus ONLINE: What personal consequences have you drawn from hating men?
      Harmange: I’ve realised that my well-being is not depended on the acknowledgement from men. I’ve shifted my focus radically on the women in my surroundings, whose support I need and whom I can offer help and support myself. I think that allowing yourself to hate men can help a lot of women in deepening the relationships to their female friends. Through this I have discovered a new quality of sisterhood.

      ZEIT Campus ONLINE: What defines this sisterhood?

      Harmange: One thing in which women are better than men are building up emotional relationships to other people. That can help us build deep connections. Moments, in which women are between each other, are important. We collect our energy, charge our batteries for the feminist fight. It doesn’t matter if we meet to knit, read, network or protest. I believe firmly that the private and intimate is political, so a round to knit can be political. Just sitting down with female friends and drinking tea helps the feminist fight, because we say things that we wouldn’t be saying if men were present. Because we talk about our experiences in a patriarchal society. And because we realize that it’s beautiful that men don’t play a role in every aspect of our lives.


      This text is a translation of the German original. The translation is written by me. Not because I agree with the person, I think her views are abhorrent and self-absorbed, more because I think it's a good basis for discussion, and because I liked the exercise. Link to the (paywalled) original

      29 votes
    3. How can we betray each other less on the Internet?

      I was thinking about having a general purpose thread about internet drama venting, but that seems like a very bad idea if all the top level threads are different gripes and one in particular gets...

      I was thinking about having a general purpose thread about internet drama venting, but that seems like a very bad idea if all the top level threads are different gripes and one in particular gets out of control, so here's mine and this can be dealt with as needed.

      There was this recent issue in left adjacent Twitter of a notable YouTube person inviting someone else to read a quote for a bigger project. Invitee had controversial views on gender dysphoria, the host defended their decision, and details aren't super important for what I want to talk about.

      I see where Natalie is coming from if she wants to make a point about Tolerance and Outgroups. I think this was the wrong way to do that, #BuckisWrong, but I don't think brigading her on Twitter and asking her social group to disavow her is appropriate, however, I don't have any skin in the game outside of being an anxious cis white male who thinks Twitter enables and thrives off of toxic discourse.

      I get that this is all some of you are willing to talk about but I want to talk about the meta and the behavior here, so please pretend they're all Martians for the time being.

      What I want to talk about is how the internet specifically reacted, asking the creator's circle to walk back any endorsement of them, holding them to a fire and how much it kind of fits in into a pattern of isolation featured earlier in Lindsay Ellis' presentation about being shamed online, and propose that what makes an internet outrage mob is kind of values neutral.

      Obviously, your -ism of choice would factor into an internet hate mob and make it into the Eternal Tire Fire that the internet is known for birthing these days, but the key spark seems to be a betrayal of trust. You thought someone or something was in your corner/was values neutral/shared your politics and when that is not the case, you simply want it gone. It was kind of always in the discussion with "Cancel Culture Concern," but it hasn't really clicked until now for me that it's such a common thread.

      So, assuming we can't nor want to make it impossible to betray one another or make the Internet a safe space for everybody and for all sensibilities, can we cut down on this outcome, is it incentivised through engagement metrics, and/or is it just something that comes with the ability to mass broadcast and mass response?

      9 votes