This might run parallel to a sense that attitudes about white people are themselves a consequence of white supremacy. I've picked up some of that as a white guy.
Even if some black folks may have had an attitude about me because I'm white, I hate the phrase "reverse racism" - as if it's a separate beast than simple racism. Because it's just racism. These people are reacting to a culture that has injured them, and targeting me as a white guy is a misplaced expression against that culture, which has infected us both.
There are odd little eddies and corners of the world where some members of persecuted populations can become empowered in their own niches and, in their way, become petty tyrants. I've seen some of these, I think. But I also think these eddies are themselves small pieces of a much larger general flow of oppression.
Maybe we need better terminology for these systems, because if you're caught in one of these little eddies of power, it can be uniquely grating to be told that you're not a victim.
Maybe we need better terminology for these systems, because if you're caught in one of these little eddies of power, it can be uniquely grating to be told that you're not a victim.
I don't understand why you say it's "uniquely" grating.
And I'd use the word "prejudice" for situations where the systemized racism of white supremacy is not in play.
Getting back to the original topic of discussion, separate schooling for girls, I lean toward the "separate but equal is inherently unequal" dictum. I'd be afraid that girls education would slide down as boys schools would prosper. Obviously some schools would resist this but in general I think it's healthy for boys and girls to have some experiences of each other as fellow members of a student body, not as sort of exotic "others".
"Uniquely" could apply to any situation, I think. Getting caught in the feedback from which particular members of a dominant set get injured by the culture "their people" promote is a peculiar space to be in.
I think that I'm using it to respect the peculiarity of the situation. It's a tricky dynamic to navigate, in my experience, and takes a lot of practice. It's a lot simpler when you're a straightforward victim or oppressor in these stories, not an in-between or "collateral damage" in someone else's fight for survival. There's probably some personal experience there, which isn't directly germane to this conversation but it's giving me cause for reflection.
Prejudice works, though it's a bit general. Sometimes it feels tepid. Also, in the USA, by my training and experience, there is no such thing as a space where "the systemized racism of white supremacy is not in play." It's always there. That falls under the old rule I picked up that white people have no business saying "I'm not racist." We're all racist. Safest thing is to own it and try to improve.
And I guess this goes back to the question of whether all-girls' schools can reconcile any of this. Girls can be jerks to girls just like guys can. There's something sexist about the assumption that violence and aggression is only the purview of men. I know these questions can sound cuttingly sarcastic, but I'm trying to be earnest: Are we trapped in gender roles and stereotypes or are we not? Which wave of feminism are we in now? I've heard feminists like me go back and forth intellectually on these questions for decades. "Girls can compete with boys." "No, they can't." "Sexualization is empowerment." "No, it isn't."
And adults can work that out for themselves, and we do. Here, you can have a trans woman in a halter top and miniskirt riding the train next to a cis woman in a niqab and it's fine. Everyone minds their own damned business! Wonderful!
But the mischief is in raising children, who (and I may still be - ND - a bit like this) don't quite know who they are and are still learning things like "social norms." And even into their teens, they'll model on what you give them and only later on will start working it out for themselves. Some folks go through their whole lives living according to models, and the ones they choose might be just fine.
State education is a good leveler. Most places in the US, I think, if you're not rich, that's where your kid has to go, and that's where a lot of formation happens. I can remember, as a kid, realizing on a visceral level that my parents couldn't protect me from the bullies. All they could do was give me questionable advice or do something extreme like move from one town to another (once.) Schools are powerful places and that scares people, legitimately.
And setting up a "separate school" for one population always raises the specter of ghettoization, pardon the expression. Any "separate school" may easily slide into "unequal" or be subject to the prejudices or whimsies of "whoever is in charge." Do you trust your elected officials? If so, you're fortunate. Not everyone can. Where I grew up, nope! And I went to one of the better schools in the region, I think, as much as I hate the comparison game.
Anyway, that's my attempt to respond to these small questions and keep this post relatively on topic. Not sure you bargained for that much verbiage, or if I'm stating the obvious.
Maybe we need better terminology for these systems, because if you're caught in one of these little eddies of power, it can be uniquely grating to be told that you're not a victim.
I don't understand why you say it's "uniquely" grating.
And I'd use the word "prejudice" for situations where the systemized racism of white supremacy is not in play.
I don't think prejudice is the right word.
Prejudice is a thing that you have: it's a set of biases and assumptions about a person based on their appearance, their sex, their accent, their address, or whatever other information you think you know about them.
Discrimination is when you do things about your prejudice. If you think that members of group X are unreliable in the privacy of your own heart, you have a problem, but the scope is limited to your attitudes. If you use that prejudice to decide not to hire a member of group X, that's discrimination. Sometimes, discrimination can be through ignorance rather than prejudice. Ignorance should be promptly corrected when someone points it out...
Systemic effects are a third thing, where the discrimination is embedded in the fabric of a society, or a part of it.
And setting up a "separate school" for one population always raises the specter of ghettoization, pardon the expression. Any "separate school" may easily slide into "unequal" or be subject to the prejudices or whimsies of "whoever is in charge."
And there's the rub. We have a lot of history of "separate but equal" not being, but can one school always meet everyone's needs, when those needs are different? Especially when some of those needs are contradictory: you can't have a wide array of courses to choose from, and also have a small school where everyone knows your name.
hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women
. Yes, it is associated with patriarchy, but a simple model that says patriarchy causes misogyny is simplistic and ignores the complex interactions between ideology, societal structure and power. It also ignores human fallenness. I would say the prevalence, prominence, and form of misogyny that we experience—and the degree to which it is tolerated—are all shaped by patriarchy. The fact that it exists at all is, however, due to our fallenness. It would exist even in a matriarchal society, but its expression would be very different.
Let me start with the nature of patriarchy. Even Western society, though dominantly patriarchal, is not monolithically patriarchal; there are varieties of forms of patriarchy expressed within it. There are also cultural areas where women have a surprising status. I believe, for instance, that in North East England, working-class women historically largely controlled the family's finances. Men brought home their wages, gave them to their wives, who then handed them back their pocket money! In the 1980s, I had friends whose marriage functioned that way, except she, too, was earning. I was close enough to them to see her giving him his pocket money. She was from the North East. No, this does not make society as a whole matriarchal; there were still great power imbalances between men and women, but women had significantly more economic clout in such societies. Equally, the practice of women keeping their maiden name in Scotland was more common than in most of England. There are a few rare exceptions of enclaves where matriarchy is the dominant power form, e.g. Womyns Land in Alapine Village, Alabama or Kihnu, Estonia, but these are highly exceptional. In other words, there are forms of patriarchy, not a single patriarchy within the West, and the power roles differ subtly within each form. This demonstrates that while patriarchy is dominant and pervasive, it is not a uniform weight; it is a variable pressure that women have navigated with differing degrees of agency..
I am Foucauldian in my analysis of power. Power is not given from the top down; it tends to be drawn towards the top until the top becomes too heavy, when it breaks catastrophically. Under all forms of patriarchy, women are not powerless; they have agency, just not equal agency. Men, on the whole, are higher in the power structure and so have more power than women as a whole due to the upward action. There are parts of society where it is acceptable for women to exercise power, and there are areas where it is not. Women will always seek to exploit where they can legitimately exercise power and to use means and tactics to try to subvert men's power to their own ends when they do not. Women are not simply victims, but are also participants and collaborators with patriarchy. They have to be to survive. That is not to say anything exceptional about women; men do this as well. Agency and, therefore, power can only exist in the presence of agents. When the 'heavy top' of a structure finally breaks, these agents do not lose their survival tactics; they simply carry their established methods of subversion and influence into the new spaces they inhabit.
Women are not usually able to overtly exercise political power in patriarchal societies. There have been exceptions, think of Queen Elizabeth I, Joan of Arc or Catherine of Siena. These exceptions that prove the rule. However, women have always been able to exercise it covertly. There have also often been areas where it is acceptable for women to have agency. The education of women by other women is seen as normal in most patriarchal societies. Nursing and midwifery are also areas where it has historically been dominated by women. I am not Foucauldian in that I do not believe in a single society-wide implementation of any power imbalance; there is an organic network which sometimes accumulates power towards the imbalances and sometimes disperses it.In these female-dominated enclaves—like midwifery or the schoolroom—women did not lack power; they simply exercised it within a different set of constraints, often directed toward one another.
It was a shock to me when I did cultural studies to discover just how different French colonisation was from British colonisation. One was not better than the other, just surprisingly different. The British were far more at arm's length, favouring indirect rule and using the local elites to cover their control. The French colonies were always seen as part of France and the rule was direct and overt. There are which are pros and cons to both approaches, whatever your stance on colonisation. Similarly, with patriarchy, there are different takes on what men's role is and what women's role is under it and how the two relate. This may not change the power imbalance, but will change how it is implemented.
Because patriarchy is a patchwork rather than a monolith, different subgroups develop different power dynamics. There exist two types of pockets where misandry sometimes occurs. One is when women who have had a particularly bad experience of patriarchy are in a position to reflect on what has happened to them. The other is when women who have a sense of denied justice meet a focused ideological critique. Though both these situations are products of Patriarchy, denying that this constitutes a genuine hatred of men simply because is a logical fallacy; it ignores the reality of human emotion.
Let's be honest: misandry exists as an extreme ideological byproduct of patriarchal pressure. If we refuse to name it, we lose the moral authority to distinguish it from legitimate criticisms of male power. Furthermore, when we use 'misogyny' as a catch-all emotive label for every social unthinkingness, we weaken the structural arguments needed to actually dismantle the system. True clarity requires us to call both out for what they are: expressions of prejudice within a complex network of power.
We must acknowledge that women’s agency, while persistent, has been culturally constrained for centuries. Because patriarchal structures have historically denied women access to overt power—the right to command, to legislate, or to use direct institutional force—women have naturally adapted by specialising in covert agency. This is not a matter of inherent nature, but of sophisticated social survival; women aren't 'dumb,' and they have spent generations perfecting a socialisation that handles power through indirect influence, social signalling, and relational gatekeeping. Women have developed a culture where these tools are valued because they are the tools that give access to power in wider society. Women habitually use these tools with other women. Consequently, even in modern society, women are often more adept at these 'covert' methods than men, simply because they have been socialised into this specialisation from childhood.
When we bring this culture of covert agency into women-only spaces, the direction of power is no longer solely upwards but also sideways. In these environments, the same survival tactics—social signalling, gatekeeping, and indirect influence—are repurposed to establish hierarchy and gain power over other women. This 'horizontal' use of power is not a moral failure unique to women, but a logical outcome of a socialisation that prizes covert agency as the most effective means of control. To deny that manipulation can exist in these spaces is to deny women their full status as human agents. If we refuse to name this 'sideways' power, we fail to protect women from the subtle, sophisticated, and often devastating forms of oppression that can occur even in the absence of men
Comments
Even if some black folks may have had an attitude about me because I'm white, I hate the phrase "reverse racism" - as if it's a separate beast than simple racism. Because it's just racism. These people are reacting to a culture that has injured them, and targeting me as a white guy is a misplaced expression against that culture, which has infected us both.
There are odd little eddies and corners of the world where some members of persecuted populations can become empowered in their own niches and, in their way, become petty tyrants. I've seen some of these, I think. But I also think these eddies are themselves small pieces of a much larger general flow of oppression.
Maybe we need better terminology for these systems, because if you're caught in one of these little eddies of power, it can be uniquely grating to be told that you're not a victim.
I don't understand why you say it's "uniquely" grating.
And I'd use the word "prejudice" for situations where the systemized racism of white supremacy is not in play.
I think that I'm using it to respect the peculiarity of the situation. It's a tricky dynamic to navigate, in my experience, and takes a lot of practice. It's a lot simpler when you're a straightforward victim or oppressor in these stories, not an in-between or "collateral damage" in someone else's fight for survival. There's probably some personal experience there, which isn't directly germane to this conversation but it's giving me cause for reflection.
Prejudice works, though it's a bit general. Sometimes it feels tepid. Also, in the USA, by my training and experience, there is no such thing as a space where "the systemized racism of white supremacy is not in play." It's always there. That falls under the old rule I picked up that white people have no business saying "I'm not racist." We're all racist. Safest thing is to own it and try to improve.
And I guess this goes back to the question of whether all-girls' schools can reconcile any of this. Girls can be jerks to girls just like guys can. There's something sexist about the assumption that violence and aggression is only the purview of men. I know these questions can sound cuttingly sarcastic, but I'm trying to be earnest: Are we trapped in gender roles and stereotypes or are we not? Which wave of feminism are we in now? I've heard feminists like me go back and forth intellectually on these questions for decades. "Girls can compete with boys." "No, they can't." "Sexualization is empowerment." "No, it isn't."
And adults can work that out for themselves, and we do. Here, you can have a trans woman in a halter top and miniskirt riding the train next to a cis woman in a niqab and it's fine. Everyone minds their own damned business! Wonderful!
But the mischief is in raising children, who (and I may still be - ND - a bit like this) don't quite know who they are and are still learning things like "social norms." And even into their teens, they'll model on what you give them and only later on will start working it out for themselves. Some folks go through their whole lives living according to models, and the ones they choose might be just fine.
State education is a good leveler. Most places in the US, I think, if you're not rich, that's where your kid has to go, and that's where a lot of formation happens. I can remember, as a kid, realizing on a visceral level that my parents couldn't protect me from the bullies. All they could do was give me questionable advice or do something extreme like move from one town to another (once.) Schools are powerful places and that scares people, legitimately.
And setting up a "separate school" for one population always raises the specter of ghettoization, pardon the expression. Any "separate school" may easily slide into "unequal" or be subject to the prejudices or whimsies of "whoever is in charge." Do you trust your elected officials? If so, you're fortunate. Not everyone can. Where I grew up, nope! And I went to one of the better schools in the region, I think, as much as I hate the comparison game.
Anyway, that's my attempt to respond to these small questions and keep this post relatively on topic. Not sure you bargained for that much verbiage, or if I'm stating the obvious.
I don't think prejudice is the right word.
Prejudice is a thing that you have: it's a set of biases and assumptions about a person based on their appearance, their sex, their accent, their address, or whatever other information you think you know about them.
Discrimination is when you do things about your prejudice. If you think that members of group X are unreliable in the privacy of your own heart, you have a problem, but the scope is limited to your attitudes. If you use that prejudice to decide not to hire a member of group X, that's discrimination. Sometimes, discrimination can be through ignorance rather than prejudice. Ignorance should be promptly corrected when someone points it out...
Systemic effects are a third thing, where the discrimination is embedded in the fabric of a society, or a part of it.
And there's the rub. We have a lot of history of "separate but equal" not being, but can one school always meet everyone's needs, when those needs are different? Especially when some of those needs are contradictory: you can't have a wide array of courses to choose from, and also have a small school where everyone knows your name.
Let me start with the nature of patriarchy. Even Western society, though dominantly patriarchal, is not monolithically patriarchal; there are varieties of forms of patriarchy expressed within it. There are also cultural areas where women have a surprising status. I believe, for instance, that in North East England, working-class women historically largely controlled the family's finances. Men brought home their wages, gave them to their wives, who then handed them back their pocket money! In the 1980s, I had friends whose marriage functioned that way, except she, too, was earning. I was close enough to them to see her giving him his pocket money. She was from the North East. No, this does not make society as a whole matriarchal; there were still great power imbalances between men and women, but women had significantly more economic clout in such societies. Equally, the practice of women keeping their maiden name in Scotland was more common than in most of England. There are a few rare exceptions of enclaves where matriarchy is the dominant power form, e.g. Womyns Land in Alapine Village, Alabama or Kihnu, Estonia, but these are highly exceptional. In other words, there are forms of patriarchy, not a single patriarchy within the West, and the power roles differ subtly within each form. This demonstrates that while patriarchy is dominant and pervasive, it is not a uniform weight; it is a variable pressure that women have navigated with differing degrees of agency..
I am Foucauldian in my analysis of power. Power is not given from the top down; it tends to be drawn towards the top until the top becomes too heavy, when it breaks catastrophically. Under all forms of patriarchy, women are not powerless; they have agency, just not equal agency. Men, on the whole, are higher in the power structure and so have more power than women as a whole due to the upward action. There are parts of society where it is acceptable for women to exercise power, and there are areas where it is not. Women will always seek to exploit where they can legitimately exercise power and to use means and tactics to try to subvert men's power to their own ends when they do not. Women are not simply victims, but are also participants and collaborators with patriarchy. They have to be to survive. That is not to say anything exceptional about women; men do this as well. Agency and, therefore, power can only exist in the presence of agents. When the 'heavy top' of a structure finally breaks, these agents do not lose their survival tactics; they simply carry their established methods of subversion and influence into the new spaces they inhabit.
Women are not usually able to overtly exercise political power in patriarchal societies. There have been exceptions, think of Queen Elizabeth I, Joan of Arc or Catherine of Siena. These exceptions that prove the rule. However, women have always been able to exercise it covertly. There have also often been areas where it is acceptable for women to have agency. The education of women by other women is seen as normal in most patriarchal societies. Nursing and midwifery are also areas where it has historically been dominated by women. I am not Foucauldian in that I do not believe in a single society-wide implementation of any power imbalance; there is an organic network which sometimes accumulates power towards the imbalances and sometimes disperses it.In these female-dominated enclaves—like midwifery or the schoolroom—women did not lack power; they simply exercised it within a different set of constraints, often directed toward one another.
It was a shock to me when I did cultural studies to discover just how different French colonisation was from British colonisation. One was not better than the other, just surprisingly different. The British were far more at arm's length, favouring indirect rule and using the local elites to cover their control. The French colonies were always seen as part of France and the rule was direct and overt. There are which are pros and cons to both approaches, whatever your stance on colonisation. Similarly, with patriarchy, there are different takes on what men's role is and what women's role is under it and how the two relate. This may not change the power imbalance, but will change how it is implemented.
Because patriarchy is a patchwork rather than a monolith, different subgroups develop different power dynamics. There exist two types of pockets where misandry sometimes occurs. One is when women who have had a particularly bad experience of patriarchy are in a position to reflect on what has happened to them. The other is when women who have a sense of denied justice meet a focused ideological critique. Though both these situations are products of Patriarchy, denying that this constitutes a genuine hatred of men simply because is a logical fallacy; it ignores the reality of human emotion.
Let's be honest: misandry exists as an extreme ideological byproduct of patriarchal pressure. If we refuse to name it, we lose the moral authority to distinguish it from legitimate criticisms of male power. Furthermore, when we use 'misogyny' as a catch-all emotive label for every social unthinkingness, we weaken the structural arguments needed to actually dismantle the system. True clarity requires us to call both out for what they are: expressions of prejudice within a complex network of power.
We must acknowledge that women’s agency, while persistent, has been culturally constrained for centuries. Because patriarchal structures have historically denied women access to overt power—the right to command, to legislate, or to use direct institutional force—women have naturally adapted by specialising in covert agency. This is not a matter of inherent nature, but of sophisticated social survival; women aren't 'dumb,' and they have spent generations perfecting a socialisation that handles power through indirect influence, social signalling, and relational gatekeeping. Women have developed a culture where these tools are valued because they are the tools that give access to power in wider society. Women habitually use these tools with other women. Consequently, even in modern society, women are often more adept at these 'covert' methods than men, simply because they have been socialised into this specialisation from childhood.
When we bring this culture of covert agency into women-only spaces, the direction of power is no longer solely upwards but also sideways. In these environments, the same survival tactics—social signalling, gatekeeping, and indirect influence—are repurposed to establish hierarchy and gain power over other women. This 'horizontal' use of power is not a moral failure unique to women, but a logical outcome of a socialisation that prizes covert agency as the most effective means of control. To deny that manipulation can exist in these spaces is to deny women their full status as human agents. If we refuse to name this 'sideways' power, we fail to protect women from the subtle, sophisticated, and often devastating forms of oppression that can occur even in the absence of men