Something I learned today at my internship (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by speedygogogo

I'm doing an internship with a disaster relief organisation. Today I was reading all about these guidelines and rules that exist for organisations that go in to ruined communities and try and help. One of the rules that I saw coming up a lot was "don't treat the men and the women the same, because they're not!"

Men and women have different needs and different roles in these communities. The men make the financial decisions, and the women are in charge of using the money allocated to supply the household with supplies they need. The men rebuild the village and grow new food and the women teach, take care of the children and the living quarters.

In the books it says don't even bother trying to change the way the society runs because even though their village has been decimated by a natural disaster the way their community runs makes them very happy. Lots of organisations try and go in and help "these poor oppressed women" when they are perfectly happy with their responsibilities and roles.

It really annoys me that these patronising people are barging into their communities and trying to change things often enough for there to be a rule that states specifically NOT to do that! This is one of the reasons why I feel hesitant to talk about my relationship to my friends! Why do people think that because a relationship isn't the same as theirs that they have to fix it?!

[–]suijurisreverie 33 points34 points  (7 children)

For me the important question shouldn't be "Is this situation right?", but rather "If these women wanted to change the situation, could they?" A free society allows and support the aspirations of it's citizens, and help to further their ambitions; if this means a woman choosing to work in an industrial field, or a man caring for children, then this should be supported. But a free society also means that people must be allowed to choose the life that they are happiest leading. If this leads women to embrace traditionally female roles and professions, then so be it.

Objecting to the status of women in a society when their is no internal movement by those women to change that status is not promoting freedom; it's imposing cultural imperialism. We should fight for the right to choose, and respect the choice.

[–]katiemonster 17 points18 points  (4 children)

Exactly. If women are being raped and killed for attempting to change their status, that is a problem. If they are happily taking care of house and home while their husbands handle the village, that's their choice and should be respected.

[–]speedygogogo[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Exactly!!!! Why is it so hard for them to understand?!

[–]ColdEiric 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Some women need to be seen helping. They are good, virtuous persons, because "She fucking said that she is one! SHE IS!".

It takes a lot of humility, and possibly more, to accept that a person can't do much for another person. It takes humility to accept, to swallow the fact that the helping is disastrously worse than no help at all.

They don't just understand what's virtuous in women and what's virtuous in men.

[–]speedygogogo[S] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Yeah, like huge problems for countries have been caused by aid workers going in with the absolute best intentions. Giving them supplies they might need but aren't sustainable teaches them to rely on something that isn't available normally.

I do think that in terms of health a lot of help can be given, like training nurses and health workers in the community, building a health center and teaching them how to look after their own people after all the aid workers have left is something that my organisation really focuses on and a lot of people have been saved as a result.

I think it's definitely has to come from the people in the community, if they don't want or understand the type of help that's being offered it's not going to do anything even if it does come from a place of good intent!

EDIT: spelling

[–]ColdEiric 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, like huge problems for countries have been caused by aid workers going in with the absolute best intentions. Giving them supplies they might need but aren't sustainable teaches them to rely on something that isn't available normally.

It's like doing the homework for the children.

[–]PrincessofPersuasia 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wonderfully put!

[–]speedygogogo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I totally agree. In some cases there are villages that relief workers go into and the majority of women are being very badly treated but are not in a position to change their own situation, in this case I think it needs to be up to the relief worker to realise and understand when to help and when the women are perfectly happy. I definitely agree that if there is no internal movement then they should be left well alone (in terms of their relationships).

I'm hoping to be able to make a small difference even if it's just explaining and reinforcing this idea to the organisation that I'm working in. Although I am only an intern so I'm not sure if anyone will listen to me...

[–]SouthernPetite 5 points6 points  (1 child)

This is a big problem area in anthropology and native rights.

On the one hand, you have people who won't help people when they want/need it because the anthropologist want to preserve the people as if they're some exhibit at a zoo, and on the other, activists rush in to impose their random agenda that has nothing to do with what the people wanted needed.

An example was there were some native people in South East Asia that had been planting trees on their land for a long time, but the government had given loggers permission to cut the trees down. The natives were simply fighting for payment and to be asked permission for future logging, but the environmentalists rushed in, made it about their agenda, and now it's illegal to harvest/import trees from the area.

That said, I haven't looked into this stuff in a long time, but I bet women's roles in other cultures is probably a very hot-button issue.

[–]speedygogogo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe it's because there's so many cases reported on the news where women are being oppressed and aid workers have managed to make a difference? There could be also maybe be a language barrier issue? What worries me is that the aid workers know and understand what the native women are saying but think they know better even though they don't!

[–]theplaidknight84 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Your friends mean well but they don't fully understand your situation, and disaster relief volunteers mean well but they don't know those villagers' lives. Hopefully your relationship isn't as bad as a mudslide-ruined village.

[–]speedygogogo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My relationship is wonderful, but you're right they are well meaning but I think it's a bit patronising of them to consider only one relationship dynamic to be acceptable!

[–]cxj 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Great post, I really like the analogy between pompous, liberal, feminist fucktards invading enlightening third world communities with their bullshit equality, and doing the same thing to individual people's relationships.

[–]Aine_of_knockaine 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everyone thinks that people are one size fits all. What works for the goose is good for the gander, but it's not the case. All we can do is do what works for us and makes us happy. Everyone else can do the same.