My first diary at Booman’s place. Yay!
Adapted and crossposted from that orange thing.
This morning there was an interview of Norweigian Social Psychologist Berit Ås. Working in the 1970’s she at meetings became aware of several ways men communicated with each other that what she said was of no importance. She started to imitate these ways (getting herself coffee or turning attention to other things when someone delivered their opinion) and found that this helped in getting her own opinions heard.
She went further and from her experiences she developed a theory of what she called “The technology of ruling”.
Let’s learn something. On the flip…
Her theory included five points:
1. Making invisible.
2. Ridiculing.
3. Denial of information.
4. Double-jeopardy.
5. The imposal of guilt and shame.
Even the ordering of the points were significant. By learning to identify the five points of the technology of ruling women could, according to Ås, support each other publicly and in a descretful way, by extending the relevant number of fingers to signify wich of the points of the technology of ruling was currently in play.
Listening to this interview I directly thought about Rove, the Republican party and their shenanigans. Although Berit Ås’ theory addresses how men rule women it isn’t limited to that kind of discrimination. I think we can learn a lot from this of how to combat Roveism.
The five points above is the original points of the Technology of ruling.
Kvinnofronten – The Women’s Front in Sweden, a Feminist Organization that fights all discrimination against, and oppression of, women – has added a few points of their own:
6. Objectification
7. Violence and threats
8. Diminishance (is that a word?)
9. Complete reversal
10. Division.
Of these last five points I recognize immediately number 9 as a tactic of the wingnuts and Rove. How often have not heard from them that the majority is the suppressed?
I think we could learn a lot from the feminist movement. Republicans are denouncing the Democratic party as the ‘mother’ party. Why don’t we embrace what in their minds is a slur and start to act like it?
———–
What got me interested in checking this out was the interview with Berit Ås an my identification of her “Technology of ruling” with Rovian/Republican tactics. Much of the information I’ve used in this diary comes from
articles in the Swedish Wikipedia. Translation is mine.
——–
After doing some more research I found that
there actually is a website in English on this. What I translated as The Technology of Ruling this website calls Master suppression techniques
I also found an article in english called A Feminist University in Norway by Berit Ås.
I don’t know if Kos have a special relationship to this woman but the subtitle of this article reminds me of “Crashing the Gate”, it’s “Storming the Tower”.
Some interesting reading on women, their workload and poverty. BERIT ÅS: ARE WOMEN AFFORDABLE? (.pdf)
This is fascinating stuff, high5 – thanks.
And congratulations on your first Boo diary, it’s the start of a beautiful friendship.
In the early 1970s I intuitively and reflexily used some of these techniques:
ONE: While working at a magazine with an almost exclusive women staff, we noticed that the men in the office building across the way spent their day staring at us, watching at us as though we were goldfish in a tank.
Very discomfiting, until — I brought in an issue of Playgirl one day, we were all getting a kick out of it, and I got a brainstorm.
I unfolded the centerfold layout, and pasted the photo of the naked guy up against the window, so the oglers across the way had naked guy to stare at.
The closed their blinds and left us to get on with our work.
TWO: The next magazine I worked at, I was put into an office with two older men, who proceeded to hang naked girl calendars and go into a wink, wink, nudge, nudge routine — I wasn’t bothered by that was I?
In the work place, mind you. So I brought in my Playgirl centerfold and hung that over my desk, naked guy staring back at ’em.
Well, they looked deflated for about two minutes until they shifted into shaming mode: “We didn’t know you were that kind of girl, Judy.”
A fairly out-of-date shaming routine, although it probably had worked on my mother’s generation, in a much more sexually repressed society for women of the 1940s and 1950s.
I replied, “I didn’t know you were that kind of boys,” and naked guy waving his penis stayed up above my desk, until one day the publisher took someone on a tour of the offices.
He pointed out our calendars, “They put up theirs, and she put up hers,” he said with a chuckle. “And now we’re going to take all of them down.”
Fine by me.
Invisible – when no other voices are heard regarding other views other takes on situations, policies or ideas.
So far our efforts haven’t been able to reach out to the great mass. Move on has been effective and then they get targeted by the smears. Micheal Moore was effective and lookie lookie at the smears!
Invisible and voiceless. Like Mr. Cellophane from the musical “Chicago.” I believe that is one reason Howard Dean stirred up so much passion in people. He spoke ideas that many of us had, but that other politicians did not speak, or if they did, they were rendered invisible themselves. “You have the power!” Dean would intone. And although, we weren’t able to make thinks better right away, people are realizing that they have a voice and that they don’t have to be invisible.
Very worthwhile diary, knowing what is happening allows one to strategize ways to combat it.
You’re right about Dean. And oh so swift he was stomped back into place again, wasn’t he. They couldn’t wait to find a way to ridicule him. In fact it was a desperat response, they even had to manufacture ‘The Dean Scream’. From what I’ve heard in the original tapes from his speech he doesn’t seem to scream at all. Only by technically removing all the background noice were they able to portray Dean as some loony.
Well, “They” certainly stomped Dean’s campaign into the ground. I don’t believe they have been as successful in doing in the passion of the people he inspired.
How about posting a comment so we can give you some fours?
It’s good to know some of the communication patterns used to take power over others. It’s excellent to use them oneself on occasion! “Diminishance” may be a strange translation of diminish, as in when people try to make us feel small. Just a guess.
Congrats on your first diary.
Much appreciated. Thank you.
I’m soooooo ready for a “mother party.”
If only it was technology of ruling and not just the way it has to be if I hope to keep myself remotely safe and other women I care for safe and my daughter safe…….and if only it wasn’t the only way I can have anything remotely resembling a happy life now.
This happens all the time, and I don’t see “enlightened lefties” being any less adept at applying these techniques.
As a man I must object to the implied masculine in the Swedish phrase for this. This is of course the standard “male bashing in passing” prevalent in some forms of academic feminism: “here is my well-researched theory, oh, andmenreallysuck. Questions?”
I’m sorry, but you’ve lost me. I am a male swede, and yet I don’t know what you mean by ‘the implied masculine in the Swedish phrase for this’. Care to explain?
And from where do you get the sence that all of this just mean “andmenreallysuck”?
Well, maybe they’ve changed the wording since I checked in last (I’ve been out of the country for half a decade).
As far as I could tell (back then), they deliberately used “Härskar-” which may imply male, the female ending having been “inna.” I do realise the gender neutral “Härskande-” is a bit unwieldy.
I haven’t seen this expression used outside theoretical feminist circles, so I guess the “men suck” part is something I was felt to be implied. (cf last years ROKS amusement.)
All in all, I feel this sort of thing is mainly about ‘victim power’, but if you can use it in other ways, by all means do so.
Again, if I’ve misunderstood or they have updated the wording, I’m happy to be corrected on this point.
Ah, Ok. But here’s how I see it.
The swedish word for what I translated as “The tecnology of ruling” is, as you rightly presumed, “Härskarteknik”.
For me though “Härskarteknik” doesn’t imply a male ruler.
The world “Härskarteknik” is made up of two separate parts; “Härskar” and “Teknik”. “Härskar” isn’t a noun in itself but the base of “Härskare” (male ruler) and “Härskarinna” (female ruler). “Härskarteknik” in itself is gender neutral.
Otherwise, I think you missed the guist of the history of Berit Ås – and my reason for retelling it; she doesn’t play the victim, rather she took her experiences, developed a tool from them to help her in her advancement. She recognized reality for what it is/was and tried to create a level playing field.
Let’s learn from her.
Just goes to show I ought to read the source material once in a while. 🙂