Sexism against women - by other women

KnocKnocKnock

A recent thread about sexism in another forum got me thinking and I'd be interested to hear what others think/ have experienced.

The other thread talked about an increasing number of facebook groups dedicated to making sexist jokes and comments about women. Personally, I don't find them offensive and one of the main reason for this is that they are so over the top,exagerrated and in your face. What I think is more dangerous is the sexism directed at women by other women, which can often be so subtle that it could be harder to detect and therefore reject.

Even in the other thread, one woman posted

wrote:

I have received demeaning comments from men while I've been out in the daytime on the way to the shops, (and no I wasn't wearing a short skirt or attracting attention to myself).

Although she didn't mean it in an offensive way, in one way it does suggest a sexist attitude that had she been wearing a short skirt or attracting attention to herself that there would have been an explanation or maybe even an excuse for others making demeaning comments.

Another example off the top of my head are the books of a respected Irish female author and the books in question were published in the late 90's/ early naughties. I only recently noticed after re-reading them, that while on the surface the author gives the impression of that she is writing of strong, independant, modern women, there are what I find to be potentially sexist attitudes and irritating stereotypes.

One of these is the "young beautiful career girl," who is almost always depicted as being outwardly tough, shallow, materialistic and career focussed but ultimately has an empty life and is just desparate to be loved. I find this a really annoying and unhealthy image to put across. Sure there are people who have no balance in life, but there are many many young beautiful career girls who work very long hours, are very dedicated to their careers AND still enjoy meeting up with their friends for nights out at the weekend and make sure to have a regular catch up with their families. There are girls who love going shoe shopping of a Sunday afternoon and STILL spend time volenteering at the local homeless shelter.

At the end of this story, the career girl finally "mellows out" when she finds out she is pregnant and is much more content with life. This too seems to be a dominating factor in the books - none of the characters are described as completley happy until they have found a loving partner and have children. This too is a false and unfair message to spread. Yet I think it's more dangerous because it's so subtle and "under the radar".

Thoughts?

deelite

Any book I've read recently has had the lead female character sleeping on 100% pure white egyptian cotton sheets!!!!

red herring

+ 1

Agree with all of the above statement. sadly its an undercurrent that effects all western women. Even the ''sex and the city'' phenomenom is something I find disturbing. The series/books are hailed as proof that women can be independent in the noughties, live in the big apple, and not be conventional with a husband and 2.4 children.
The idea is of being so ''liberated'' these sucessful young women can have ''sex with a different man every night'' if they please.
However scratch the surface and its pretty obvious this series/books are all about finding ''Mr Right'' all the girls table discussions are about men. The perennial search for a husband/true love is the theme which permeates this book/series. Basically, the idea is that womens aim in life is to find the perfect husband. Its pretty demoralising that women see this as some sort of ''empowering'' series/book, when really its the opposite.
So yes, OP, I understand where you're coming from, there's a lot of female subconcious sexism. This show/phenomenom is one example.

Giselle

red herring wrote: »

+ 1

Agree with all of the above statement. sadly its an undercurrent that effects all western women. Even the ''sex and the city'' phenomenom is something I find disturbing. The series/books are hailed as proof that women can be independent in the noughties, live in the big apple, and not be conventional with a husband and 2.4 children.
The idea is of being so ''liberated'' these sucessful young women can have ''sex with a different man every night'' if they please.
However scratch the surface and its pretty obvious this series/books are all about finding ''Mr Right'' all the girls table discussions are about men. The perennial search for a husband/true love is the theme which permeates this book/series. Basically, the idea is that womens aim in life is to find the perfect husband. Its pretty demoralising that women see this as some sort of ''empowering'' series/book, when really its the opposite.
So yes, OP, I understand where you're coming from, there's a lot of female subconcious sexism. This show/phenomenom is one example.

Its obviously not empowering to indiscrimminately sleep with a series of strangers just because men (some men) do, any more than its empowering to drink yourself into unconsciousness. Its a ridiculous standard to promote as 'proof' of liberation and independence, but even more ridiculously its adopted all over the western world, along with agression (verbal, physical) as a sort of badge of freedom.

Equally I find it sexist that one group of women will judge a woman who actually wants marriage, or shock! horror! children, as somehow disempowering themselves or selling themselves short.

Limiting womens choices was a male specialty area until recently, now women are doing it to each other.

Dudess

Women bitching about other women's appearance really gets on my nerves.

KnocKnocKnock

Giselle wrote: »

I find it sort of sexist that one group of women will judge a woman who actually wants marraige, or shock! horror! children, as somehow disempowering themselves or selling themselves short.

Limiting womens choices was a male specialty area until recently, now women are doing it to each other.

I agree with the Sex and the City example redherring, while on the surface it gives the impression of being "ground breaking" and modern it actually gives subtle opposite values. When I was younger, I admired the fact that they were depicted as attractive career girls who had good friendships, they had relationships, they had sex, they had fun and they were happy in themselves. But the more I watched, the more I realised that they are constantly searching and felt unfulfilled. Like many things of this nature aimed at women, the end of the series showed them all in relationships, all but one engaged/married with kids, and now they are finally fulfilled and there can be "closure", it can end.

The character of Samantha, was meant to represent an alternative attitude of the woman who is the equivalent of the "traditional alpha male". At the start of the series she is extremely confident, she a high powered job, has sex with whoever she wants without inhibitions and is completely unapologetic. However towards the end of the series, this confidence is undermined it's implied that everything before, all her confidence and "take me as I am" attitude was just a defence mechanism, we I find disappointing.

This thread is not intended for bashing women who want marraige and kids - I do myself one day. I just hate the condescending attitude that permeates a lot of media aimed at women, that you don't have a complete life unless you are married and/or have kids. This is one thing that I have to applaud SATC for as they did bring this issue to light in one episode. When Carrie is upset that her expensive shoes go missing at a friend's baby shower, the friend says that she worried about things like that too "before she had a real life" :rolleyes:

Why can't they have a series/book/other where the women are attractive, career orientated, have good friendships, good family relationships, and who are not "missing" something who feel happy and complete within themselves.

Giselle

KnocKnocKnock wrote: »

Why can't they have a series/book/other where the women are attractive, career orientated, have good friendships, good family relationships, and who are not "missing" something who feel happy and complete within themselves.

Ah sure there's no drama in that!:)

KnocKnocKnock

Dudess wrote: »

Women bitching about other women's appearance really gets on my nerves.

I agree.

I remember reading a newspaper article that really made my blood boil. The article stated that in the Brad Pitt/ Angelina Jolie/ Jennifer Aniston fiasco, people would automatically side with Jennifer Aniston because "how could anyone find Angelina Jolie approachable with those long limbs" while Jennifer Aniston looked much more "girl next door". Basically that people would judge Angelina Jolie negatively because she was "too attractive" while Jennifer would garner support because she is less overtly sexual (and presumably less threatning to some).

KnocKnocKnock

Giselle wrote: »

Ah sure there's no drama in that!:)

:pac:

There could be!
I'm sure they'd get a few episodes out of the issues brought up in this thread:D

red herring

KnocKnocKnock wrote: »

I agree with the Sex and the City example redherring, while on the surface it gives the impression of being "ground breaking" and modern it actually gives subtle opposite values. When I was younger, I admired the fact that they were depicted as attractive career girls who had good friendships, they had relationships, they had sex, they had fun and they were happy in themselves. But the more I watched, the more I realised that they are constantly searching and felt unfulfilled. Like many things of this nature aimed at women, the end of the series showed them all in relationships, all but one engaged/married with kids, and now they are finally fulfilled and there can be "closure", it can end.

The character of Samantha, was meant to represent an alternative attitude of the woman who is the equivalent of the "traditional alpha male". At the start of the series she is extremely confident, she a high powered job, has sex with whoever she wants without inhibitions and is completely unapologetic. However towards the end of the series, this confidence is undermined it's implied that everything before, all her confidence and "take me as I am" attitude was just a defence mechanism, we I find disappointing.

This thread is not intended for bashing women who want marraige and kids - I do myself one day. I just hate the condescending attitude that permeates a lot of media aimed at women, that you don't have a complete life unless you are married and/or have kids. This is one thing that I have to applaud SATC for as they did bring this issue to light in one episode. When Carrie is upset that her expensive shoes go missing at a friend's baby shower, the friend says that she worried about things like that too "before she had a real life" :rolleyes:

Why can't they have a series/book/other where the women are attractive, career orientated, have good friendships, good family relationships, and who are not "missing" something who feel happy and complete within themselves.

This articulates perfectly the point I was making. I don't condemn women who want marraige and children- I want that myself someday.
It is the prevalent theme of not being fulfilled until one has children and Mr. Right that I disagree with. This is the theme of SATC and I disagree with it. Women should not be defined by children or a man. However, I have nothing againest women who hold these as important values.

miss5

I think women are incredibly judgemental of other women. There will always
be underlying competitive jealousy especially with very attractive girls
and that's a fact not fair though.

WesternNight

In the good old days women knew where they stood. Men knew where they stood. Men worked, earned the money to support their families. Women tended to the house and the children. That was just the way it was. Roles were clearly defined and everyone knew what was expected of them.

Now, women can work. Women can stay at home. It's up to them. Now, there's a choice to be made. Or several. It's not as clear-cut as it used to be.

The thing is that with choice in all areas, there's also judgement from all sides.

Women judge women for staying at home in the "traditional" role and feel it's something of a slight to feminist movements, or a slapping the hand that feeds them kind of thing.

Women judge women for working after they have children because perhaps they feel as if the children will suffer if their mother is away from them for any length of time.

Women judge women for NOT having children. An awful lot of women cannot get their heads around this one.

Women judge women for wearing particular clothes. For having their hair a certain way. For wearing too much make-up, or god forbid...not wearing any at all.

(this could go on for days)

Men might be to blame for a lot of historical sexism towards women. But by god, women are well up there now too.

KnocKnocKnock

WesternNight wrote: »

In the good old days women knew where they stood. Men knew where they stood. Men worked, earned the money to support their families. Women tended to the house and the children. That was just the way it was. Roles were clearly defined and everyone knew what was expected of them.

Now, women can work. Women can stay at home. It's up to them. Now, there's a choice to be made. Or several. It's not as clear-cut as it used to be.

The thing is that with choice in all areas, there's also judgement from all sides.

Women judge women for staying at home in the "traditional" role and feel it's something of a slight to feminist movements, or a slapping the hand that feeds them kind of thing.

Women judge women for working after they have children because perhaps they feel as if the children will suffer if their mother is away from them for any length of time.

Women judge women for NOT having children. An awful lot of women cannot get their heads around this one.

Women judge women for wearing particular clothes. For having their hair a certain way. For wearing too much make-up, or god forbid...not wearing any at all.

(this could go on for days)

Men might be to blame for a lot of historical sexism towards women. But by god, women are well up there now too.

I agree, and even during the times of "traditional" roles, women were still judged other women. I remember my mother telling me that my Grandmother was always so anxious when her sisters-in-law came around as they were always making comments about the house/her cooking skills/how she had cleaned/how the children were dressed. It's usually done through snide remarks and "jokes", but it's a subtle criticism of how another woman is not as she "should" be.
Nowadays, the new role changes have just brought about new targets for judgement.

Bonito

Dudess wrote: »

Women bitching about other women's appearance really gets on my nerves.

My version would be this: Women bitching about other women and their appearence just because of their own insecurities and issues. I don't get that sometimes. I have had girls admit "Yeah, I am a bitch but I don't give a toss." Then, at the same time, the same person would never look at someone she didn't know and comment harshly on them/their appearence.

Now, if the girl had a falling out with another girl she may call her a lot of horrible names and comment on her clothes/hair/weight etc in the heat of the moment but, this is because she knows her on a personal level and is angry at her.

So, where is the same-sex-sexism line drawn?

Wibbs

[Mad rambling male interloper theory] IMHO its cos women drive many aspects of society, in particular everyday society. In the sense that they are the brakes on society, especially brakes on the potential "wildness" of men. Men left to themselves, especially young men, can be and act OTT and destructive. Now often they do this to attract women, but generally the presence of women calms them down. I recall reading about contacts with remote tribes by anthropologists. If the tribe showed up as an all male party they were usually belligerent as a general rule. If women were present chances are the encounter was going to go more smoothly.

So because of that "role", women self check themselves and each other for what is considered outlier behaviour for the culture in question. They have also got more of a specific time frame for certain events. You see this in relationships. Couple go out, last to 2 years, woman in the vast majority of cases is the one then driving the "where do we go next". The ones driving the milestones. The moving in/getting engaged/married/having kids as a broad framework. Men tend to be lets keep the status quo sure we're fine mindset.

They compare this framework with other women as a self check. I think this is partly why a long time single woman can often be viewed with suspicion by her peers, way more than a single man would be with his peers. Also why women in a couple, in a group are often twitchy or try to set up a single man hanging around. He's a loose cannon on deck.

So this may be where the bitchy stuff and the competitive stuff between women comes from. The self checking mechanism going askew. It's judgement to reach an equilibrium for the society. Throw in the variability in gender roles today like WesternNight said and that ramps this up even more.[/Mad rambling male interloper theory]

seenitall

red herring wrote: »

This articulates perfectly the point I was making. I don't condemn women who want marraige and children- I want that myself someday.
It is the prevalent theme of not being fulfilled until one has children and Mr. Right that I disagree with. This is the theme of SATC and I disagree with it. Women should not be defined by children or a man. However, I have nothing againest women who hold these as important values.

Hmmmm... hold on. You want marriage and children someday, but you disagree with the prevalent theme of not being fulfilled until one has children and Mr Right, however you have nothing against women who hold these as important values.

Make up your mind?

Say for argument's sake you got to your "someday" with no marriage and children in sight, how would that make you feel? Wouldn't there be a distinct possibility of feeling somewhat... unfulfilled?

I think chick-lit, SATC and other cultural phenomena like that are a pretty accurate mirror of the basics (as most of us don't work in New York's Vogue or wear Manolos) of the modern Western woman's situation "on the ground", so to speak.

Women have more choices these days, but so do men. Life used to be simple with less choices. If a guy wanted sex on tap and ironed shirts, he had to marry. If a woman wanted security and babies, she would powder her nose, look pretty, get a guy to marry her and everyone's a winner.

Nowadays, guys don't have to marry to get regular sex, it is readily available on an average night out clubbing or whatever. So, their main motivation for marriage is non-existant now. They can (and increasingly do, as far as I can see) wait till they are middle aged to settle down, when the age starts to creep up on them and it is more comfortable to be coupled up (as women still do most of the housework). Women, meanwhile, have a career, all well and good, but the rub is in that they have a biological clock to contend with; if they want a family at some point, they have to be actively looking to get with the reluctant guys and get them to "the settling down" stage sooner rather than later. Which, unless they succeed in some reasonable time-frame, inevitably leads to mid-life crises and obsession with men (SATC - remember, these girls were in their mid-thirties already when the show began!).

I'd say overall (and this is just my opinion), women who have no motherly instincts and are finding most fulfillment in their careers, gain the most. The ones who from the young age wanted just families also aren't doing too bad, since they were able to trade in their youthful looks for marriage and babies early on in life. But the in-betweeners, who want to have both, are left pretty much screwed, keeping their eye on the old ticking clock while doing the company's accounts.

Men are the real winners here (surprise, surprise...). They get a carefree youth, settle down when they want to, have kids when they want to, AND they have much more choice these days when it comes to women (all the young'unes and the older ones still on the market), result!

Truly sorry I went off topic. To try and rescue the post, I can offer that women being judgmental to each other doesn't matter a jot in the great scheme of things. Women unfortunately have much bigger worries than in-fighting these days. Honestly, as a woman, I don't even give any of these standards and judgments a second thought. My life is complicated enough as it is.

ShagNastii

KnocKnocKnock wrote: »

Another example off the top of my head are the books of a respected Irish female author and the books in question were published in the late 90's/ early naughties. I only recently noticed after re-reading them, that while on the surface the author gives the impression of that she is writing of strong, independant, modern women, there are what I find to be potentially sexist attitudes and irritating stereotypes.

One of these is the "young beautiful career girl," who is almost always depicted as being outwardly tough, shallow, materialistic and career focussed but ultimately has an empty life and is just desparate to be loved. I find this a really annoying and unhealthy image to put across. Sure there are people who have no balance in life, but there are many many young beautiful career girls who work very long hours, are very dedicated to their careers AND still enjoy meeting up with their friends for nights out at the weekend and make sure to have a regular catch up with their families. There are girls who love going shoe shopping of a Sunday afternoon and STILL spend time volenteering at the local homeless shelter.

At the end of this story, the career girl finally "mellows out" when she finds out she is pregnant and is much more content with life. This too seems to be a dominating factor in the books - none of the characters are described as completley happy until they have found a loving partner and have children. This too is a false and unfair message to spread. Yet I think it's more dangerous because it's so subtle and "under the radar".

Thoughts?

God I hate people harking on about stereotypes about how they are this and how they are that. Its not so much a case of Hollywood and these books spreading this terrible terrible message. These characters ARE real. There are a thousand stories which have been told over and over again. In film and literature, The whole women settling down with Mr.Right and her beautiful kids story is a big one. Because ,get this, the majority of people generally follow the path in life of being wild free and single in your youth and then finding someone you feel you would like to grow old with. I always seems to be the happy ever after because for so so many IT IS what they crave and it really is the happy ever after (no shame in that).

lazygal

I haven't read the whole thread but I was wildly disappointed with the Sex and the City craze. I might be off the mark but I think it has set women back. The women in it are portrayed as materialistic and shallow, and how did the show end? With all of them finally finding love with a man. The film was also very retro, and not in a good way. The main character can only land her man by giving into the kind of wedding he wants-he gets to determine their day, there seemed to be no sense of compromise or meeting eachother halfway.
I find there is a subtleness to some sexist practices this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055863716&highlight=surname

really got me thinking. Even though a woman gives birth, she hands the surman of her child to that of a man? I want a double-barrell name, my partner is the same, and if we get married I'd keep my name, but the number of women (not men) who find it somehow distasteful is quite disturbing. I also find it bizarre how women often keep churches going, yet can be excluded from many of the higher echelons of such institutions.
This might be a bit rambling, sorry, but I find this subject really interesting! And BTW I recommend LIVE ALONE AND LIKE IT by Majorie HIllis for a much more independent view on single women.

pickarooney

I've never watched SATC but the above scenario sounds like a typical human condition. The notion of free, unattached sex and a powerful career ultimately being an empty existence compared with the love of a partner and children is just as applicable to men. Can you think of any programmes or films where there is a male character who lives the playboy lifestyle to the max and is not at some stage confronted with the growing-old-alone demon?

Nip/Tuck springs to mind, Christian Troy's character in particular. His vain, moneyed, sex-charged lifestyle is of no interest to the viewer; it's his weaker, I-need-to-be-loved side which keeps people interested.

Entourage is another show centred around young alpha-males banging everything in sight, yet the overriding theme (more subtly for some characters than others) is finding the right woman and being happy.

Feeona

red herring wrote: »

However scratch the surface and its pretty obvious this series/books are all about finding ''Mr Right'' all the girls table discussions are about men.

I'm not usually a fan of girlie films and such. I laughed through most of the SATC film. I did notice however that Samantha's character

didn't end up with anyone at the end because she decided she was happier on her own

. I though it was a great side swipe at all those romantic movies which champion finding a partner above all else.

I'm not a fan of chick lit as it usually propagates the notion that you can be a successful as you like, but you'll never truly be successful until you're with a man. PS I Love You had a great ending, and I was delighted to see that the

main character didn't end up with anyone in the end

which is far more realistic for women nowadays.

Wibbs

pickarooney wrote: »

Can you think of any programmes or films where there is a male character who lives the playboy lifestyle to the max and is not at some stage confronted with the growing-old-alone demon?

I'd agree alright, though "Two and a half men" is an interesting example. Stereotype city of the above, but..... The Sheen character has it all. Money, looks and a line of beach babes lining up to do the nasty. If you look at it, it's actually among the darker representations you see. He does get away with being a horndog, a mysogynist and using woman after woman and only very rarely getting his comeuppance. Even when he does its temporary and he's back in the saddle in the next scene.

On the other hand his "sensitive" brother tries to be nice, wants the love, wife and kids, but nearly always ends up being dumped on. His ex wife treats him like crap. The husband of the ex wife is treated like crap. There are strong women characters, but they're universally harsh and treat the men who are all wusses (with the exception of Sheen) like crap. It's the running joke of the show.

The subtext seems to be, if you can be a horndog and get away with it, do so, because being sensitive with women gets you nowhere and may actually be damaging. Its the most popular sitcom ratings wise in the US.

I hadn't watched it for a while and when I did I noticed the theme of growing old and growing old alone was being pushed and they had the sheen character finally getting a regular partner. Even so he was still in the driving seat more than any other character. I suspect they jumped the shark when they paired him up.

I think it represents a theme seenitall refers to(great post BTW). That yes women have much more choice, but so do men, though not as many go for it, or can. That many men would begrudgingly admire the Sheen character, but see themselves as the brother or the other put upon men. He's the Alf Garnet of the "sex war". He says and does things in an exaggerated way, but reflective of what many men may feel. Look at the popularity of that "pickup artist" guff. I think that's along similar lines.

Like seenitall says men can if they want have sex without any other commitment, way more than in the past. Even if they get a woman pregnant, they can if they're cold enough, bypass responsibility there too, or have minimal responsibility anyway. Shotgun weddings are pretty rare these days. That sexual/family bargaining chip for women is no longer as strong as it once was. Not if a man realises that he can go out and get another woman. As men go beyond their late 20's this gets more obvious and again like seenitall said they have much more choice. and like she said the SATC women were in their 30's when the show began. It wouldnt have worked nearly as well if they had been 21.

I've seen it in my male mates and the fallout of that with my female mates. IMHO it could be why this cougar thing is becoming more popular as a meme. I know a fair few women in their 30's that are seeking out younger men and I dont think its always for sex either. The younger men tend to be more loyal and easier to "control" than older guys, more likely to be grateful. Another thing I've noted are women hiting 30 and going for less exciting men than previously. Not avoiding bad boys as such, thats just good sense, but going for more average men. Again I think because the more average man is more likely to settle down and less likely to stray. This notion is an old one though. I remember a mates granny advising her to settle down with a man who loves her a little more than she loves him.

I also think it's on topic. Because competition in the dating game is much higher, competition among women has gone up with it. Competition in careers among women is higher too. Throw in unrealistic expectations by culture and the media and again woman against woman competition goes up.

Nevyn

Honestly I would be more worried about how women limit other women then stuff like sex and the city, like when a woman says she is intrested in a non traditional subject/hobby/job to be suportive instead of saying "what do you want to do that for" while looking at her as if she just grew another head, or "you'll not get a husband doing that".

Sult shaming also does my head in and going along with sexism, thinking that it doesn't apply to them, and tell other women to lighten up and to cop on and be less thin skinned.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/03/16/reader-beatdown-on-thick-skin/

More importantly, “thick skin” was a way for women to ignore behavior that they might otherwise interpret as sexual harassment or discrimination. Alana described one male colleague, a trader “who’s very old-school, just because he didn’t start his career in the P.C. generation… the old-school guys will wink and call me ‘sweetie’ or ‘honey’ and wink. And if I were easily offended, then that would be sexual harassment.” But because Alana isn’t “easily offended,” because she has thick skin, that colleague isn’t a sexual predator. He’s “old-school.”

The women I interviewed were trying their best to succeed in a hostile environment, and that often meant adapting and changing their own behavior rather than demanding that the environment be adapted and changed for them. This is understandable, given that they were very much in the statistical and cultural minority. But when men like the commenter on Hess’s post suggest that women develop a thicker skin, they’re asking women to adapt to a hostile environment rather than asking themselves the hard questions about what they, as men, need to do to change that environment.

Of course, there’s an argument to be made that women who invoke thick skin are making it easier for men to do so, and are therefore being complicit in the ongoing hostility of the environment. And I’m not letting those women entirely off the hook, because the thick skin narrative is used, by men and women alike, to divide women into two groups: the reasonable women, and the victims. When I asked Alana about how other women might have responded to that “old-school” colleague, she talked about women who had filed sexual harassment and discrimination suits against her firm and other Wall Street firms. “I think that women who take that attitude are really at fault, because if you approach everybody like a victim, you’re not going to get anywhere… If you can fit in, and not call attention to the fact that you’re a woman… it’s better to just not call attention to the fact.”

The irony is that these women don’t need to call attention to the fact that they’re women – they’re being sexually harassed for that very reason. Women who accept sexual harassment, be it at work or on the street, have “thick skin” and are “reasonable.” Women who don’t are “victims” who “can’t hack it.” At work women are faced with two equally unpleasant choices: suffer harassment or discrimination in silence, or speak up and be branded a thin-skinned victim who makes all the other women look bad. On the street, speaking up comes with the added danger of a physical attack. It’s a no-win situation that we face on the way to work, on the way home, and every moment in between. “Thick skin,” as handy a survival method as it might be, is not a solution: the solution is to change the acceptability of harassment and discrimination.

pickarooney

Thaedydal wrote: »

Honestly I would be more worried about how women limit other women then stuff like sex and the city, like when a woman says she is intrested in a non traditional subject/hobby/job to be suportive instead of saying "what do you want to do that for" while looking at her as if she just grew another head, or "you'll not get a husband doing that".

Sult shaming also does my head in and going along with sexism, thinking that it doesn't apply to them, and tell other women to lighten up and to cop on and be less thin skinned.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/03/16/reader-beatdown-on-thick-skin/

There might be a point in that article about thick skin, but she uses the weakest possible example and comes off looking like an idiot, IMO.

Nevyn

It's what she was researching writing about when the issue hit home.

Morgase

This anecdote is only half-related - it's more of a sexism against girls by women.

I was chatting with some other women in work, one of them was trying to think of a present to buy her niece but couldn't think of anything. She said that boys are much easier to buy for, you can just buy them a chemistry set and let them blow stuff up. This wasn't coming from an older woman by any means! I was just shocked at the "girls wouldn't be interested in science" attitude.

I thought that we'd got past the stage of buying children gender-specific toys but maybe we're going backwards a little. One of my other workmates is trying to source a pink version and a blue version of some particular toy for her twins (one girl, one boy).

As for women judging other women, I'm sure I'm not the only one who is judged by other women because I am not maternal, have no interest in clothes and shoes, have no desire to get married. I get most of the "ah you will of course want children one day" comments from other women.

Wibbs

Thaedydal wrote: »

Honestly I would be more worried about how women limit other women then stuff like sex and the city,

I agree 100%, but the SATC and its ilk reinforce all sorts of guff, both women(and men) could do without. The only one of them with a "non girlie" career, is the red head whose name escapes. She's a big lawyer type. Who does she end up with? A sensitive but traditional barman type, who takes over the feminine role in a lot of ways. Why wasnt she paired up with a career equal?

like when a woman says she is intrested in a non traditional subject/hobby/job to be suportive instead of saying "what do you want to do that for" while looking at her as if she just grew another head, or "you'll not get a husband doing that".

+1000

Sult shaming also does my head in and going along with sexism, thinking that it doesn't apply to them, and tell other women to lighten up and to cop on and be less thin skinned.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/03/16/reader-beatdown-on-thick-skin/

I'd agree, but I'd also agree with pickarooney in how that writer puts the point across. Plus the environment she describes is a very competitive aggressive one. For women and men. A more sensitive type of man isnt going to last píssing time either. He would have to grow a thick skin fast too. It is what it is. Now there is an element of "this is how its always been done, so we're gonna continue in this vein". Very much so. And that does exclude different thinking and approaches which isnt so good.

Maguined

KnocKnocKnock wrote: »

Why can't they have a series/book/other where the women are attractive, career orientated, have good friendships, good family relationships, and who are not "missing" something who feel happy and complete within themselves.

In this paragraph have you not just done what you argued against? you specifically mentioned attractive? are women who are career orientated have good friendships, good family relationships but are not attractive missing something from their lives and so cannot be happy and complete within? can they only achieve this happiness and completeness as long as they are considered attractive?

Feeona

Feeona wrote: »

I'm not usually a fan of girlie films and such. I laughed through most of the SATC film.

I swear to god, I wanted to strangle the main one, carrie or something.
Where in god's name did she get off blaming her best friend for that idiot man leaving her at the altar? I think that must be a prime example of women blaming other women!!
She wants a nice wedding, best friend redhead the night before is understandably upset about what's happened to her and makes a throwaway comment, and the guy who's obviously not happy anyway runs off. Then the redhead gets blamed for it and the guy gets HIS own wedding his own way with complete forgiveness despite humiliating carrie at the altar.

God that film made me angry, I'll shut up now... :mad::o

KnocKnocKnock

Maguined wrote: »

In this paragraph have you not just done what you argued against? you specifically mentioned attractive? are women who are career orientated have good friendships, good family relationships but are not attractive missing something from their lives and so cannot be happy and complete within? can they only achieve this happiness and completeness as long as they are considered attractive?

I do think women who aren't attractive can have all those things - in the post I was arguing against this stereotype being used as representative of women who are focussed on their careers (even though I know the stereotype does exist in real life).

The reason I mentioned that characteristic is that the stereotype is always described as being attractive. Kind of the "beautiful bitch" character.

SeekUp

I'm going to butt in for two seconds and defend ONE thing . . . while I thought the SATC movie was kind of trash, in terms of the wedding, the main character was the one who went full steam ahead and planned a big elaborate wedding - which was opposite of what she and her fiance had agreed upon - without discussing it with him at all. Not that that was an excuse for him running off, don't get me wrong, but in the end, it wasn't HIS wedding HIS way, it was the wedding that they both wanted in the first place.

Excuse me for being off-topic!

Please resume the regularly-scheduled discussion.

KnocKnocKnock

ShagNastii wrote: »

God I hate people harking on about stereotypes about how they are this and how they are that. Its not so much a case of Hollywood and these books spreading this terrible terrible message. These characters ARE real. There are a thousand stories which have been told over and over again. In film and literature, The whole women settling down with Mr.Right and her beautiful kids story is a big one. Because ,get this, the majority of people generally follow the path in life of being wild free and single in your youth and then finding someone you feel you would like to grow old with. I always seems to be the happy ever after because for so so many IT IS what they crave and it really is the happy ever after (no shame in that).

Of course these stereotypes exist and of course it's not shameful to want it - I mentioned that in my first two posts, but it is not representative of a large portion of the population. Do you think that all people who are childless/ unmarried must be unhappy and yearning to change that situation? If yes, don't you think that's a pretty arrogant attitude to have? If no, then you are of the same opinion as myself and I'm wondering why this portion of the population isn't represented.

Nightwish

I have to put my hand up and say I reckon I am guilty of sexism of sorts against my own sex. I suppose its because I find it incredibly difficult to understand say, a woman who would give up work for kids. I dont understand the yearning to have children though. I find myself devoid of that particular aspect of femininity. I dont understand why certain women dress the way they do. An example of this is if a very obese woman wears short skirts, belly tops etc and lets it all hang out. I would find it hard to understand why a woman would do that. I don't know...maybe I am just a horrible person!

Nevyn

Honestly I think that if you would think less of a man for doing the exact same thing then it's not sexist but if you would not think less of a man or you would think eve more less of woman then a man it's sexist.

Nightwish

Ok! I agree with that. ^^^

Books film etc reflect the cultural zeitgeist of the times they are written in, therefore the having it all life style, meeting Mr right, is a real reflection of the concern of woman in the latter half of the twentieth century.....

The women judging other women is an interesting one an i think some women don't even realise they are doing it.

This is a good example... my sister was telling me one day how someone she knew was finished work at 3.30 but left their baby in the creche till 6 o clock so they could have some time to them selves!.... my sister and some of her friends were very judgemental about this...i find a lot of women are very judgemental of other women's parenting...yet these are the same women who would be very non judgmental about someones sexual or life style choices...but feel its okay to judge someones parenting!!!

KnocKnocKnock

mariaalice wrote: »

i think some women don't even realise they are doing it.

+1

Kanoe

In typical female fashion I'm more forgiving of men than women, I don't know why.

Kanoe

I've read the thread a few times and had to think about how to respond and without trying to offend anyone in the process.
I remember reading stats gathered a few years ago which claims that women are generally less sympathetic toward their own gender. Specifically in cases of rape, over half the women questioned were more inclined than their male counterparts to blame the victim for the ordeal. The reason why women do this? To help make themselves feel safer, they believe if they don't do what "she" did it won't happen to them. I find this mentality pervades every aspect of the female approach to their own and perhaps why women are so quick to denigrate each other.

linkage

I find women disappointing as a species in general

Wibbs

zxy wrote: »

In typical female fashion I'm more forgiving of men than women, I don't know why.

I think we're all more forgiving of the opposite gender than our own. I would be more forgiving of women than men. There are things a woman could say or do that I just wouldnt accept from a man. IE emotional outbursts. Unless it was for a proper reason, I would immediately downgrade a man for that behaviour.

WindSock

What kind of emotional out burst do you mean, Wibbs? Like crying, or losing ones temper and shouting?

Wibbs

Crying, losing the rag etc. I don't rate men who do it. Well specifically who do it with little reason to. Grief or actual emotional pain, yes of course, but not for trivial stuff. Too many cry babies out there among men in my humble. Not a popular view no doubt, but there you have it.

Women get more emotional as a general rule. Cry more and flip out over things I might find trivial. Not all by any means, but more than men. So over the years Ive made more allowances. Plus the hormone thing can have a genuine effect.one ex of mine was very together. One of the most well balanced people of either gender Ive ever known but for a few days a month all bets were off. she was literally a different person. That's a good reason though, she had no control over it.

WesternNight

Wibbs wrote: »

Crying, losing the rag etc. I don't rate men who do it. Well specifically who do it with little reason to. Grief or actual emotional pain, yes of course, but not for trivial stuff. Too many cry babies out there among men in my humble. Not a popular view no doubt, but there you have it.

So whether they have reason enough to or not is decided by you rather than them? See, that makes no sense to me at all.

Wibbs

Oh they may have their reasons and fine that's their business, but how I choose to respond is mine. And yes I think some people quite simply over react to sweet feck all. I just chose not to be around that type as I have a different viewpoint. Also its better for them to be around people who share theirs. EG some men like their girlfriends to be damsels in distress. They feed on that. Whatever floats ones boat, but it wouldnt float mine. Thats all.

We all have lines in our head and we all make judgements of others.

Orla K

zxy wrote: »

I find women disappointing as a species in general

lol, I didn't know women were a separate species:p

I get this a fair bit but it's only little things that I don't care about. The last one was because I'm female I'm expected to be cleaner. I'm a messy person, to be honest I don't think there's much I can do about it, if I clean I just don't see the 'dirt' that other people do. The amount of stick I get really off just women and they always campare me to a guy who's tidy and imply I should be better at it than him because I'm female. This is from people who actually said womens work is in the home and mens is outside. I kind of prefer 'mens' hobbies and it's awful, alot of the women I know dismiss me when I talk about this and the men too (not friends, they just accept me for me, but there's not to many people where I'm from that are just accepting)

Myself I love watching people, gathering as much info about people just from looking at them, I was having a coffee and looking out the window at people, my mind was on clothes so I was mainly focusing on peoples clothes and what they said about them. I was looking at some people, mainly women and thinking things some of the things I was thinking I just had to stop myself, I was being a bitch:o I gathered my thoughts and went back to observation rather than being bitchy.

Just remembered even here on boards(before I start mods I'm not complaining just saying). not long ago I made a comment about child rearing, I will admit the way I put it wasn't great but it got a few replies the first one said something like why bother having children and loads of people thanked it. I was actually surprised at the amount of posters thanking it. I did think it would get someone replying but I still can't get over it, I didn't think I would get that reaction here, where I always thought of a more laid back, live and let live place.

I actually think it's really just people judging people when they don't fit into their own view of how things should be. I can't think of anything that matters that could be sexist, to be honest here, where I live it's men that are the most annoying for beings sexist, the women don't actually stop me doing anything, the men do, it get's very annoying. (and then the women get onto me about 'getting' a guy, their idea of what a guy should be now, which is one of these guys that annoy me)

Oddly enough, the older women don't say or do anything like this and my granny is happy that I'm doing things on my own, she always says 'more power to you' it's the life she wanted, she had to get married (young) to get out and all she wanted was her own house, it was the only way she could get it.

zxy

zxy wrote: »

I've read the thread a few times and had to think about how to respond and without trying to offend anyone in the process.
I remember reading stats gathered a few years ago which claims that women are generally less sympathetic toward their own gender. Specifically in cases of rape, over half the women questioned were more inclined than their male counterparts to blame the victim for the ordeal. The reason why women do this? To help make themselves feel safer, they believe if they don't do what "she" did it won't happen to them. I find this mentality pervades every aspect of the female approach to their own and perhaps why women are so quick to denigrate each other.

linkage

I find women disappointing as a species in general

I agree 100% with the first bit. That's exactly what lots of women do. If they hear a woman was attacked or something bad happened, they'll blame her, they'll say she must have done something wrong. That way, they can feel safe going about their daily business, when in reality, the poor woman who did get attacked or whatever was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. I remember back when I lived in halls there was an attempted rape of a student and you should have heard the way other girls were talking about her, calling her an idiot because she was walking home at 11pm. As if they didn't do the exact same thing all the time. Acknowledging the reality that the world is dangerous, and that it could have been any one of them was just too stressful for their brains, so instead they just buried their heads in the sand and thought 'well, I'm safe because of X (insert totally illogical reason). Instead of sympathising with and comforting the victim, they ostracised her and acted like she deserved everything she got. This was my rude awakening to what lots of women are like, at the age of 18.

I also get this attitude about my abnormal smear issues. I get comments from women like 'you should have been more careful', or 'you shouldn't have had sex so young' (I was 21 and had had one partner :rolleyes:), as if there has to be a reason that this is happening to me, as if it isn't just 100% pure bad luck that any woman could have. It's simply their way of convincing themselves that somehow I deserve my circumstances, and that it won't happen to them. It's ridiculous. I find that men are much more understanding. It's very rare than I find any sort of solidarity between women, just judgements and comparisons.

Kanoe

Orla K wrote: »

lol, I didn't know women were a separate species:p

sorry..I did spot it but sometimes my tongue gets stuck firmly between my cheek and I let it run. (I try the observation thing too)

Kanoe

Wibbs wrote: »

I think we're all more forgiving of the opposite gender than our own. I would be more forgiving of women than men. There are things a woman could say or do that I just wouldnt accept from a man. IE emotional outbursts. Unless it was for a proper reason, I would immediately downgrade a man for that behaviour.

I find that when a guy does something silly its like a he's a guy..when a woman does the same its as though expectations are higher and therefore she should know better. I think its a reflection of the Irish mother syndrome. I generally have higher expectations of women and probably why I get disappointed more easily. We're also harder on ourselves than maybe we should be.

Wibbs

As I say it depends on personal viewpoint. I'm a guy so would have higher expectations of my own gender.

Morgase

[quote=[Deleted User];65810963]I also get this attitude about my abnormal smear issues. I get comments from women like 'you should have been more careful', or 'you shouldn't have had sex so young' (I was 21 and had had one partner :rolleyes:), as if there has to be a reason that this is happening to me, as if it isn't just 100% pure bad luck that any woman could have. It's simply their way of convincing themselves that somehow I deserve my circumstances, and that it won't happen to them. It's ridiculous. I find that men are much more understanding. It's very rare than I find any sort of solidarity between women, just judgements and comparisons.[/QUOTE]

My jaw dropped when I read this, that is just an unbelievable attitude for women to have

I could well imagine the "oh she had it coming" attitude regarding the girl getting attacked when walking home in the evening, but blaming a women for her abnormal smears... well, the mind boggles. As if you don't have enough to worry about like!

Kanoe

[quote=[Deleted User];65810963]I find that men are much more understanding. It's very rare than I find any sort of solidarity between women, just judgements and comparisons.[/QUOTE]the majority of my friends are male and I prefer it that way, I find men more understanding too. actually, I could think of a hundred reasons why I prefer male friends over female.

Morgase

Morgase wrote: »

My jaw dropped when I read this, that is just an unbelievable attitude for women to have

I could well imagine the "oh she had it coming" attitude regarding the girl getting attacked when walking home in the evening, but blaming a women for her abnormal smears... well, the mind boggles. As if you don't have enough to worry about like!

I know. But it's so commonplace. I've literally had friends with 10 times the amount of partners I've had turn around and tell me I should have been more responsible. I was going to say it's because it's sex related, but I've also been told it was my own fault for having a nose bleed in Morocco because I wasn't wearing a hat (like that would make any difference ) and that it was my own fault for getting food poisoning because I should have realised the food tasted dodgy (it didn't). Some people really do go to any lengths to make them feel like it wouldn't happen to them rather than deal with reality. Men do this as well but in my experience, women do it much, much more. With some women, EVERYTHING has to be the person's fault. Nobody can just have bad luck.