One Woman = All Women

Blisterman

I'm coming to this as an outsider, but something I've noticed, is that there tends to be an expectation that what any woman does is a reflection of womankind in general, and that women are expected to act as representatives of their gender whether they choose it or not.

I first noticed a while back I was talking to my girlfriend at the time, about a friend of mine who's girlfriend was found cheating on him, and she looked embarrassed and actually said "I'm sorry on behalf on my gender", which I found very strange. I know of lots of guys who've cheated, and I've never once felt that what they did had any bearing on me.

Since then, I've noticed it more and more. For example, if a woman chooses to quit her job when she gets married, there's often a noticeable feeling of disappointment, and it seems to be viewed, not as her own personal choice, but as an affront to women everywhere.

This is not something I've ever noticed happen with men. Probably naturally, really because for so long they were dominant that there was never any need for any sense of solidarity based on gender, but it seems to me, there's still some way to go before women are viewed as individuals with their own actions and feelings rather than as automatically belonging to a group.

What are people's opinions on this?

Morag

It's toxic and pervasive. It's one of the ways in which women are the majority gobally but we are treated as 'other', that one of us are expected to represent all of the 'minority' we are a part of. Men don't have that 'burden' and can do and be as they choose with out 'letting the side down' or being a bad example. It was/is a way of controlling or policing women's behavior, heavens forbid any of behave in an unladylike behavior....

Lyaiera

One of my favourite people of all time(Aleks Krotoski) has done quite a bit of research on this, insofar as how it occurs on the internet. A huge amount of the fundamentals of her work was borne out of computer game culture, which I imagine is pretty much the best example of a Western "OMG GURLS SUCK!" approach to life. You just have to look at the recent kickstarter for a documentary on women and feminism in gaming. (As in it had a huge amount of success and there was also a huge amount of incredibly stupid anger directed at it.)

Eve_Dublin

I got rejected by some women in Dublin rather rudely a few times = "Irish women are bitches".


Sounds familiar alright.

Lunni

Yep, I agree.

I had a male friend a few years ago who I saw a lot of and considered a good friend. At one point, he didn't reply to my texts and I didn't see him for a month or so. I assumed he must be busy or having personal issues or whatever. Eventually, he did text me and we met up and he told me the reason he hadn't wanted to meet was that he was 'going through a period of disliking women' because a girl he liked had been messing him around.

Well, I told him that was ridiculous and offensive. Because ONE woman, one silly, immature woman was messing him around, he didn't want to see me, a good friend who'd always been there for him? He was actually writing off an entire gender, 50% of people on the planet because of the actions of ONE woman? I'd only recently been cheated on and dumped by my ex-boyfriend and I didn't dream of blaming all men for that.

I got up and walked out and never talked to him again. Some people think I overreacted there, but I really don't. It was clear at that moment that he didn't see me as a person but just as a woman, the same as every other woman. How incredibly ignorant, ridiculous and pathetic.

eviltwin

Can't say I have noticed it from women but I have a male friend who will not under any circumstance date an Irish woman because of bad past experiences.

I also see it in relation to my job, again from men - I work with women affected by domestic violence. Nearly every man I meet, when he hears what I do, assumes I hate all men or think all men are violent. They acutally seem quite surprised to hear I'm happily married and that I don't think all men are b@stards. Yes us women do understand that just because one man acts like a tool doesn't mean all men are like that.

Personally I have never felt the need to apologise for my gender and I have never felt that another woman's choices are "letting the side down".

Das Kitty

I've noticed it from women. The "I apologise on behalf of my gender" nonsense. Gets my goat.

Da Shins Kelly

It reminds me of a quote by Clare Boothe Luce:

"Because I am a woman, I must make unusual efforts to succeed. If I fail, no one will say 'she doesn't have what it takes', they will say 'women don't have what it takes'."

It's not right, but there is a certain amount of truth in it. It's a responsibility that's been given to women to acquit themselves as best they can so as not to give other women a bad name. It's ridiculous, but unfortunately somewhat true.

Wibbs

Das Kitty wrote: »

I've noticed it from women. The "I apologise on behalf of my gender" nonsense. Gets my goat.

This. You're either being a gobshíte or not, regardless of gonad position.

Ayla

I think this has nothing to do with being a woman. I think any person of any ethnic, sexual orientation, body weight, geographic, social status, etc etc etc group experiences this.

How many times have we heard "those [insert ethnic group here] people do..." or "those [insert social status here] people are..."

People categorise, they label, they stereotype. This happens. IMO, it doesn't happen any more to women than it does everyone else (and for whatever sterotypical reason it's done). I think we are all guilty of it.

Earthhorse

I gotta agree with Ayla, there, no one group has a monopoly on this.

To run with the post break up example given above, I have met plenty of women in this phase who have said things like "All men are b*stards, anyway" or "I'm so sick of men", despite the fact that it's only one man who has done this to them. But they're hurt, and it's understandable that some of that hurt gets directed a little loosely in the absence of its actual target; I don't take them literally, that would be a bit pedantic, even for me.

To give another example, a male friend of ours was sleeping with his ex over the course of a weekend away, knowing that she had feelings for him that he did not reciprocate. One of the girls was talking to me about it and said "How come guys do that?". She could see from the expression on my face that of course it wasn't guys who did that and corrected herself but I can see where she was coming from; sometimes it seems like there's a different set of rules applying to the genders - and you know what, there's an element of truth in that - but I don't think it's all that different in the round.

Certainly, online these sort of things are amplified due to the majority voice being men and due to the immaturity of certain groups (gamers - not all gamers but some of the most vocal ones unfortunately ) but no group gets off scott free. Remember, Americans are stupid, Irish are drunks and boards.ie users are geeks.

awec

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

It really only irks me when I hear/read statements like 'Every girl wants to be a Princess' or 'It's every woman's dream to have a big, white, wedding'.

I never wanted to be a bloody princess (I wanted to be a cowboy ) and the thoughts of having a big, white, wedding fill me with horror - I'd rather bungie jump over Niagara Falls and from someone who gets vertigo that's saying a lot.

Statements like these tend to be made by women - what they really mean is 'I want to be a Princess/ I want to have a big, white, wedding' so I wish they would just say that and not declare what they want holds true for every single female on the planet.

Doctor DooM

Yeah it really is one x = all x, the amount of sexism I faced from women while managing a curtain shop was incredible. My colleagues though, awesome people that they were, would often come down with a sudden dose of the stupid when someone refused to take my word for anything and spend half the conversation with the customer returning to me for confirmation of every size, despite being more than capable themselves. I'd often hear "men can't do colours, men can't do sizes." Actually, I can do them well enough to be running the place.

It's something that makes me grind my teeth. I was watching a big, international gaming tournament recently. There was one guy at it who was terrible, way below, say the Irish average at the game. He got a few "he was terrible" comments. Next up was a young lady from Spain and one particular person watching asked aloud how she'd managed to get into this tournament, must have blagged a spot, etc. before she had even played. When asked this person shrugged his shoulders and said "all girls are bad at games". (Of course this is untrue, simply less women simply enjoy competitive games).

The problem is people aren't thinking when they say these things. In fact, I'd go as far to say as people who say things like this a lot tend to be people I wouldn't think of as... thinkers.

beks101

Isn't it just what we do as humans though? We generalise, because it makes us more comfortable, it removes the element of fear of the unknown, it gives us a false sense of control in any situation.

I can certainly be accused of having my 'I hate men' episodes where I'd adopt the notion that 'all men do is let you down', etc because I've been burned particularly badly in a relationship or whatever. It's a protective, defensive thing; it doesn't lead to me abandoning my male friends or not talking to my own Dad or anything. It's just a way of viewing potential dates for a little bit while my heart recovers.

I think we can all be accused of generalising in some way or another; it's probably just more apparent with women because we've had to fight for the respect and equality we deserve for so long.

Emeraldy Pebbles

eviltwin wrote: »

Can't say I have noticed it from women but I have a male friend who will not under any circumstance date an Irish woman because of bad past experiences.

Good luck to him. What will he do if a woman of a different nationality screws him over?

Emeraldy Pebbles

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I never wanted to be a bloody princess (I wanted to be a cowboy )

I wanted to be a meteorologist.

Da Shins Kelly

I think at first I wanted to be a tiger, and then upon realising the impossibility of that dream, decided I wanted to be a vet.

I wanted to be an architect! Then I realised it wasn't quite the same playing with Lego.

Madam_X

awec wrote: »

Stereotyping is not solely directed at women. Indeed women are well capable of stereotypical remarks themselves.

I don't think that's what the OP is referring to - or that anyone is disputing the above. What the OP seems to be referring to (well I think so anyway) is the mindset that actually seems to exist among women themselves - apologising for how other women behave. If they don't approve of a woman behaving a certain way, why do they have to bring her being a woman - and the supposed "effect it has on womanhood" - into it? It's like the Irish self-hating thing - you don't get other nationalities being ashamed of themselves over what a few of their number has done.
I have heard men say "So and so makes me ashamed to be a man" though - it's just as unnecessary.

Star Lord

I have in the past apologised to female friends of mine, but more "On behalf of normal, decent guys, I apologise, we're not all complete arseholes."

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

I wanted to be an architect! Then I realised it wasn't quite the same playing with Lego.

My blond haired son wanted to be Whoopi Goldberg when he grew up - hated to break it him but he took it well, apparently he just wanted to be a stroppy Black woman with dreadlocks and tons of attitude...

Lyaiera

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My blond haired son wanted to be Whoopi Goldberg when he grew up - hated to break it him but he took it well, apparently he just wanted to be a stroppy Black woman with dreadlocks and tons of attitude...

Or the coolest bartender in the whole of the Federation?

:pac:

Eve_Dublin

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

I have in the past apologised to female friends of mine, but more "On behalf of normal, decent guys, I apologise, we're not all complete arseholes."

Why would you though?


Tbh, I've heard this among both genders, just more frequently among women.

Ayla

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

I have in the past apologised to female friends of mine, but more "On behalf of normal, decent guys, I apologise, we're not all complete arseholes."

Again, I don't think this is a man/woman thing. I think it's a thing that happens no matter how the line's drawn.

I had someone "apologise" on behalf of the Irish when I was treated horribly by an Irish family when I moved over here. I've also (half-jokenly) "apologised" on behalf of Americans when (yet another) blunder has been made by my native countrymen/women.

Again, it's a matter of seeing the individual of any group. If people were able to categorically do that instead of stereotyping then I don't think there would be any "apologising" on behalf of...

Pat Mustard

Interesting thread.

Given that white, middle class men hold far more power than other sections of our society, and given that other more marginalised sections of society presumably want to redress the apparent imbalance in power, isn't it rational that women should not only want to succeed but that they want that success to be visible?

Perhaps that is why quite a number of women that I know had/have such hopes for Hilary Clinton. If she became the first female President of the USA, it would really break new ground.

So while women seem to be pleased by the success of womankind, maybe they are displeased by failures.

I might add that it seems to me that women are more likely to jump to the defence of another woman, figuratively speaking, than a man might in similar circumstances.

At the same time, in my opinion, there are some strange paradoxes in womens' behaviour.

Although women want womankind to succeed in general, women seem to be fiercely competitive amongst each other to the point of begrudgery, in business, social and other circumstances. To men, competition is rivalry: usually nothing personal. Among women, it's seems more along the lines of a fight to the death. It seems more personal, more of the time.

So in a nutshell, what I am saying is that in some ways, women see themselves as a collective, striving for some greater good. On individual bases, women seem to be their own harshest critics.

coffee_cake

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I never wanted to be a bloody princess (I wanted to be a cowboy ).

I just wanted to be a writer :cool:

Bannasidhe

Lyaiera wrote: »

Or the coolest bartender in the whole of the Federation?

:pac:

Oh this was waaaaayyyy before Guinan got the bar gig (oh fellow Trekkie) - back then she was mainly doing stand-up and had just made Jumping Jack Flash

beks101

The Mustard wrote: »

Given that white, middle class men hold far more power than other sections of our society

Do they though?

Politically speaking, the U.S election has been pretty interesting on this. The result was determined by the female vote, albeit marginally, but women still came out in greater numbers. Romney got the white middle class male vote but it wasn't quite enough. And look at the U.S Senate and the record number of female representatives there this year.

I think as an historically minority group, women will be more prone to rallying and/or apologising for one another as a collective than men will be - women will push for Clinton 2016 so they can see the first female U.S President much like African Americans pushed for Obama 2008 to be able to see their first black President. Because both groups have been on the fringe for so long.

The nature of this, I think, is the paradox that we'll hold individual women much more accountable for a multitude of matters than men will (a cheating woman, a rude woman, a lazy woman etc is someone to 'apologise for on behalf of our sex')...and equally, we'll parade an individual who perhaps might not be deserving of it, just because of a prominent position that might allow her to elevate the status of the group (for example, what exactly has Hillary Clinton achieved in her own right to make her a contender for presidency? She's been highly competent, visible & likeable as Sec of State, but it's hard to find her fingerprints on important decisions and in 2016 she'll be close to 70...etc)

Pat Mustard

beks101 wrote: »

Do they though?

Yes.

beks101 wrote: »

Politically speaking, the U.S election has been pretty interesting on this. The result was determined by the female vote, albeit marginally, but women still came out in greater numbers. Romney got the white middle class male vote but it wasn't quite enough. And look at the U.S Senate and the record number of female representatives there this year.

You raise some interesting points. Apparently, there was 55% female voter turnout in the recent US elections. There are still only 20 female senators, and that is the most in US history. The vast majority of elected representatives worldwide are men. There are also countries such as Finland and Sweden, where the balance is closer to even.

beks101 wrote: »

The nature of this, I think, is the paradox that we'll hold individual women much more accountable for a multitude of matters than men will (a cheating woman, a rude woman, a lazy woman etc is someone to 'apologise for on behalf of our sex')...and equally, we'll parade an individual who perhaps might not be deserving of it, just because of a prominent position that might allow her to elevate the status of the group (for example, what exactly has Hillary Clinton achieved in her own right to make her a contender for presidency? She's been highly competent, visible & likeable as Sec of State, but it's hard to find her fingerprints on important decisions and in 2016 she'll be close to 70...etc)

I agree with the general thrust of your point.

However, I think that Hillary Clinton is an impressive figure. She was successful lawyer, a First Lady who carried her own political agenda (I mean that in a good way), was first elected to the senate in 2000. She was narrowly defeated by Baraq Obama for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination. She was Secretary of State. She has extensive political experience at this stage. At the moment, she is a likely front-runner for the 2016 Presidential nomination. Granted, she will be 69 years old by then, but we should remember that Bob Dole was 73 when he ran against Bill Clinton in 1996.

Through all this, she managed not to be (excessively) overshadowed by the legendary Bill.

beks101

The Mustard wrote: »

However, I think that Hillary Clinton is an impressive figure. She was successful lawyer, a First Lady who carried her own political agenda (I mean that in a good way), was first elected to the senate in 2000. She was narrowly defeated by Baraq Obama for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination. She was Secretary of State. She has extensive political experience at this stage. At the moment, she is a likely front-runner for the 2016 Presidential nomination. Granted, she will be 69 years old by then, but we should remember that Bob Dole was 73 when he ran against Bill Clinton in 1996.

Agreed, but does her impressive CV and long list of high profile positions qualify her for a presidential role? Does she have the sufficiently strong relationship with the military that a U.S president (and therefore Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces) requires? Arguably one of the most important relationships for a U.S president. The Libya fiasco raises some important questions too.

These are the sort of arguments you hear little of, perhaps because of the parading of her status as a sort of symbol of 21st century female ambition - the laundry list of achievements that you outlined that seemingly embodies what women should feel they can strive for, despite the fact that a lot of them were positions she was catapulted into on her reputation as First Lady to a male president (and a lot of hard work, no doubt, but there's no denying the role that Bill's star power played). Becoming NY senator having never lived in NY, as one example.

Obviously she's a deeply intelligent, hard working, fiercely ambitious and experienced woman, no-one can touch her on foreign policy and her credentials speak for themselves. I am actually a fan (no, really! :eek:)

But to bring it back to the original thread question - the idea that what women do represents their gender whether they choose it or not.

What Hillary could achieve for womankind in a first-time female U.S presidency is so great, so huge, so unimaginable just a mere few decades ago, that perhaps it stifles the debate on what exactly she would and wouldn't bring to the table. It's not popular to not be a Clintonite right now. Especially if you're female. As a woman, surely you'd want to see a female U.S president?