Samples:

Question: You say that women are the ones who police and monitor one another and silence dissent.

Answer: Women are silenced not because men beat up on us but because we don't want to be shunned by our little cliques. That applies to all age groups. That'on of the reasons that women are so conformist and indirect: we end up sabotaging her rather than risking the loss of her intimate companionship. Weomen stealing each other's lovers and spouses and jobs is pandemic.

And this:

"We don't serve ourselves so well with our depth-charged levels of capacity for intimacy because then we can only be close to a samll group. We can't command a nation-state."

Oh, oh! Get it first-hand

quote:

---

Our lived realities have never conformed to the feminist view that women are morally superior to men, are compassionate, nurturing, maternal and also very valiant under siege. This is a myth.

---

"I hope she expands in her book on the myth she claims to be combatting, else she's just setting up a straw... er, person"

But is that not setting up a "straw" er... issue against her.

Audra, you do much the same with the injection of wether she has done her research. The closest thing I could find in the linked review of her other book on which you presumably base this implication says:

"she's failed to figure out is how to reach a generation that doesn't necessarily want to hear them."

Did you misread that as failed to research?

quote:

---

But is that not setting up a "straw" er... issue against her.

---

I wouldn't say so, no. In the interview, she refers to "the feminist view," etc., as much as to say it's dominant in mainstream feminism (whatever exactly that is). Or so I read it.

quote:

---

Our lived realities have never conformed to the feminist view that women are morally superior to men, are compassionate, nurturing, maternal and also very valiant under siege. This is a myth.

---

I wish I didn't have to put this in the first person, but unless I do, I will sound even more egotistical than I'm about to (ie: in presuming anyone else is left to agree with me -- although I do) ...

That being said, however, there is a category that I have termed "competitive females", and this seems to be what Chesler is talking about, although she's guilty herself of an idealization of what women should be like... Otherwise, how could it be so awful that women can be so awful?

Anyway, back to competitive females... Those are the ones who snub the girls who aren't wearing the right clothes in high school, "steal" each other's boyfriends (I personally don't believe anybody can be "stolen" -- if he dates your friend behind your back, he's as much a louse as she is... But that's another issue.), etc. And yeah, I've known a few. Sure, they exist. That's nothing new. What's the big whoop?

I think the stereotype, that either angel or bitch thing that we have in our archetypal roles for women... We don't make enough room in between. I can't say I've always been nice and nurturing, although there have been times when I've risen to the occasion, angelwise, in situations that were enough to make anybody into a harpy. I've also taken great pleasure in being supremely nasty. I believe that any whole person, male or female, has to be allowed the opportunity for some range on the scale.

Why does nurturing have to be a female trait, anyway? I've known a couple of very patriarchal men who were very nurturing, compassionate and valiant. It was from men I learned these things, for the most part. I've also observed men to gossip and hold petty grudges.

I'm rambling. It's late. The point is, why do any of these traits have to be labelled male or female? Both the patriarchals and the feminists who try to stuff us all into pigeonholes irritate the hell out of me...

Edited for clarity...

[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: Zoot Capri ]

In the vaccum of facts, however, no one can hear you scream.....

After reading this part of babble for some time, I'm suspicious of people who claim to identify what the various orthodoxies are in feminism. By this I mean an author makes a statement like "radical feminists believe...." I think that is the strawman surfacing. If it's one thing "feminists" do it's write. So, if there's a position out there, it can be attributed and documented. Lack of such references is suspicious.

Be that as it may, I have debated, here on this very forum, with women that seem to believe that women are beings who stand outside nature herself.

Surely, women have their intra-gender behavioral dynamics as men do, and as we have identifiable behaviors when the genders interact.

I'm not convinced that there is enough evidence to suggest that women are inhumane to each other, but it is notable that sometimes women can be jerks to each other, like any other animal on this planet.

That sounds like a given, but I do believe there are those who would like to forget this side of things.

The single mom thing mentioned by germaine is interesting. I think women try to control each other's sexuality as much as men try to control womens sexuality.

Doubt me? Of either sex, who reserves the most viscious language and attitudes for "women of easy virtue"?

Anyway, sure women are mean to each other, competitive and aggressive. Men are mean to each other, competitive and aggressive. The difference lies in what form our behaviors take, behaviors which are formed largely from gender-based socialization. How we treat each other keeps us all down. Well, not all of us - the few privileged movers and shakers who always run the show count on our particular ability to undermine each other to maintain the odious status quo.

Does the rather execrable Dr. Chesler have any practical thoughts on how to raise our daughters to be kinder, better humans? Apparently not.

[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

As for sexual competition, i'll put you one question in two parts, Tommy_Paine. Are there, or have there ever been, viable communities based on polygamous marriage? Are there, or have there ever been viable polyandrous communities?

Yes, there is competition among people of all genders, for all kinds of scarce resources. The poorer and more insecure people are made, the more they can be turned against on one another.

For example, if only one on ten executive positions or scholarships will go to a female, 20 of the 500 females competing for it will fight very fiercely, and not always fairly. (The other 480 never had a chance, and they know it). On close examination, i suspect you'd find that women are at their fiercest and least concerned with morals when fighting on behalf of their children.

quote:

---

The closest thing I could find in the linked review of her other book on which you presumably base this implication ...

---

quote:

---

Anyway, sure women are mean to each other, competitive and aggressive. Men are mean to each other, competitive and aggressive.

---

Yet these traits are seen as strengths in men.
Weird.

Basically, right now, I wish all the rulers in the world were female.

I suspect the world would be what I would think of as a better place.

Yet, the most notable example of a female ruler in my lifetime and one that has imprinted itself on my brain - step forward, Mrs Thatcher.

There was some cleverdick (it was a bloke) letter to The Guardian the other day saying the list of Greatest Britons included 13 females (and I quote him)

"or 14 if you count Mrs Thatcher as a woman"

I felt riled at that comment. She definitely was not my idea of a moral, decent, or compassionate ruler, but because she went so against the female gender stereotype and was responsible for what I consider some really horrendous anti-woman legislation and attitudes, does that mean her gender is not allowed to be female? (Maybe I should say sex rather than gender, as gender being a social construct, I guess we could argue she was not female in gender but was female in sex, but even then I think there is an underlying sexism).

Indira Ghandi, Golda Meier, Margaret Thatcher? No thank you.

Make all leaders women, and the power stereotype etc. changes.

Its not instant, but would it be any worse than what we have now?

You sound like my wife. I'll repeat, in order to get to the top, women have to be as ruthless as men are said to be. When they get to the top, they face the same pressures as men to exercise power in a ruthless manner.

quote:

---

You sound like my wife. I'll repeat

---

I guess you repeat yourself to your wife in the hope that she eventually agrees with you rather than letting you repeatedly correct her stupid arguments (I am starting to feel for her!)

I disagree about your view of power - there are examples of people who having achieved power (and not always in the cynical fashion you describe), have wielded it in a fair, considerate and no0n-ruthless manner. In addition, the policies that would be adopted by women would not necessarily be the same as those adopted by men, in my view.

And no, you do not need to repeat yourself.

I heard you the first time.

I disagree.

Clear, darling?

Dr. Chesler's motives or sincerity which you question by implication, are merely speculation on your part, aren't they? Er....."straw" distractions apparently to discourage your readers to consider her words on their own merit. But, in such a manner couldn't we dispense with taking any of our fellow Rabblers seriously whenever these challenged any of our myths or beliefs? But, then, what would be the point of this site? Unless it were to be merely a cyberspace "hotline" for venting your spleen.

As for your fragment of the "feminist myth" (I don't mean anything negative by using that word) or beliefs, you say:

"The difference lies in what form our behaviors take, behaviors which are formed largely from gender-based socialization."

I hope I understand you correctly - I though this nonsense had hit the dust-bin of recent history a decade ago. That it only lasted till we, despite being inculcated with the values of feminism and the activist 60's became parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, daycare workers and teachers to children of both gender. For, to our shock, even when we took great care to avoid "gender-based socialization", our little infant boys insisted on being boys - sticks as swords and "pow, pow" -while girls dressed up dolls and..... themselves.

None of this is to deny that there remains pandemic gender-based socialization. However, some of it a "practical" accommodation to the undeniable fact of hormonally-mediated, gender-typical behaviour.

Consequently, we, parents, did what unliberated generation before us did - while hoping our feminist friends weren't around, give our little girls dolls and cute dresses because they were obviously much happier with these than the toy cranes and wooden mallets and pegs which delighted the little boys. Meanwhile, we got tired of little Sunshine continually screaming in despair and misery because little Merlin treated the playroom like a construction site - we'll give the girls their own play space and send the boys to play in the yard with their rubber swords. You get my point?

By the late nineties, having noticed that we weren't that much happier with our gender-sensitized world, despite our liberation, and, for example, having noticed that the performance and self-esteem indicators of our young sons had dropped to a level comparable to that of females thirty years ago, some of us, Dr. Chessler possibly included, are asking if our 60's myths might have had some flaws from the perspective of liberation.

Chessler and others, not believing that their little boys are inherently less loveable, less worthy or more punishable for the excesses of the preceding aeons of partriarchy, want a better liberation myth, one which, as I interpret it, will involve no loss to any gender. One which will guide us to inspire respect for all other human beings, meanwhile, letting boys be boys and girls be girls....... if they want to be.

Your other point, Rebeccah:

"Does the rather execrable Dr. Chesler have any practical thoughts on how to raise our daughters (ed. Why exclude sons?) to be kinder, better humans? Apparently not."

quote:

---

"The difference lies in what form our behaviors take, behaviors which are formed largely from gender-based socialization."

I hope I understand you correctly - I though this nonsense had hit the dust-bin of recent history a decade ago.

---

Bullshit.

quote:

---

For, to our shock, even when we took great care to avoid "gender-based socialization", our little infant boys insisted on being boys - sticks as swords and "pow, pow" -while girls dressed up dolls and..... themselves.

---

I'm sure some did. Others may not have. I, as a child, tended to dress up and play guns simultaneously. I'm fairly certain I'm not alone.

At this point, I know parents who go exclusively pink and ruffly when they have a daughter, and recently attended a boy's birthday party where I witnesses the largest collection of toy weaponry I've ever seen, to the exclusion of nearly anything else. Some parents are aware, some aren't and others just don't care. It's a slow change.

I still don't think one can expect a blanket statement like "women are nurturing" to apply. We have a competitive and aggressive culture, we can expect males and females alike to be aggressive and competitive, albeit in different, socially acceptable manifestations.

quote:

---

I still do not understand why it is so awful that women can be mean....

---

It's not that they can be mean that's so awful, it's the way they are so mean to each other that's the awful thing.

quote:

---

The attitude of married women to single mothers in Australia is interesting. It sounds much like the attitude in America, 50 or 60 years ago. I suggest that this is partly a question of societal mores. It's related to the fear and suspicion of 'loose women' that Tommy mentioned. 'Loose woman' is a particularly apt label: small, interdependent communities maintain their stability by binding every member to a family unit, a set of responsibilities, a place in the structure. A loose - that is, unattached - woman is perceived as a threat: a temptation to married men; an exception to the moral standard; a potential disrupter of harmony.

---

I'd say the attitude described towards single mothers is actually more common in North America than we think. As a single mom, I wss quite fortunate to have friend and family support, and a job. However, I was quite frequently "tut-tutted" as I walked down the street or sat on the bus. Most likely because I looked quite young and didn't have a wedding ring.

I think the attitude, however, is borne less out of some misogynist suspicions than a general right wing attitude that the poor CHOOSE to be poor. Hence the attack against the poorest members of society.

I have quite frequently been told (here in Canada) that single moms on welfare have kids for the sole purpose of "upping" their welfare check. I have disagreed, but those who believe it are quite vehement.

Perhaps, if necessary, we could start yet another thread on the nature vs. nurture argument of sex differences. It seems nobody ever tires of arguing that point!

But I'd like to get back to the original question. Are women being destructive to each other the real culprits in the constant lower status of women? Or is it the patriarchy that feminists "complain" about?

I couldn't link to the actual interview, but I have a few ideas.

It seems to me that women do have tendencies to be competitive and, at times, destructive to one another. And at times it can appear that women are more inhumane to one another than we allow.

However I would argue that the sometimes viscious competition among women is actually construct of patriarchy.

Men are a "prize" to be battled over.

Beauty is the tool to win them.

We must constantly show ourselves to be "more" beautiful and more "lovable" than the other.

Men are taught faithlessness is a masculine trait - uncontrollable - and women are forced to be better and more lovely and more delicate and more whatever to "keep their man".

I need to construct my thoughts a bit more, and I will likely be able to find some good articles to back me up. Perhaps I'll be back with some ammo, so for now I throw this out as a largely unformed thought...

Maybe it's not so much a man that is 'the prize', as a staying man with a regular paycheque. We have an awful lot of women living in No Exit poverty. A guy with a job is your ticket out of the trailer park, y'know? There aren't many ways to escape poverty, and too few of each to go around.

Solidarity would help. When women cooperate, they can get amazing things done. The effectiveness of any organization depends partly on what the group needs to achieve. This, here, is a long-term project: hard to mobilize troops, hard to hold together, hard to keep up their spirits in the face of failure and opposition.

"So, is female competition for mates really a product of patriarchy, or of poverty?"

Many distinct gender behavioral tendencies - eg. male physical assertiveness and eg. female need for depth in relatedness - are genetically programmed! That is why little boys and girls naturally behave quite differently (with an overlap in gender-typical behaviour, of course!).

Aeons ago before we had the potential to be civilized these "instinctual drives" had tribal survival functions. Now we're stuck with the civilizing challenge of managing - not crushing or denying - these unstoppable urges in order to move forward as entire nations or even as one humanity.

That is where the role of profound cultural workers is potentially so important, for artists - the Greek dramatists, the composers of Italian oper, Shakespeare, Chekov, etc. - have always dramatized these urges and their various outcomes, holding our attention, involving us and causing us to reconsider how we deal with such things.

This may be why the vendors of causes based on blame as well as the commercial and political manipulators of human dividedness water down art. For they rely on making sectoral or selfish use of our unexamined, instinctual tendencies.

But, no, the source of malcreant behaviour does not itself lie in patriarchy, matriarcy, wealth or poverty. Blame is a dangerous game.

quote:

---

I have asked, if not quite as an either/or question, how women on this forum dress and why. The answers were far more various and interesting than either "I dress to please men." or "I dress for other women's approval."
As for sexual competition, i'll put you one question in two parts, Tommy_Paine. Are there, or have there ever been, viable communities based on polygamous marriage? Are there, or have there ever been viable polyandrous communities?

---

You are quite right about the dressing thing, of course there is such a thing as context, and women on any given day may be dressing as much for weather as anything else. But in very general terms, I think women are much more conscious of how they look to each other, more than how they look for men.

I'm not sure I know enough about anthropology anymore to give justice to your polyandy/polygamous questions.

I do believe there have been viable societies of both. Seems to me there was/is a culture in Norther India that is polyanderous, and although the word viable (no society that isn't "cable ready" merits viable in my estimation, but that's me....) is contentious, I think we can find societies that are. Some of the Islamic world is still polygamous, I believe, and mostly cable ready, too.

I am a woman - and not one of the fresh new products of psycho-culture. perhaps not very typical, either. I have never dressed for other women. I have never dressed for men, in a general way, though i have certainly dressed with great care and effort for a particular man. And i have both received and given kind advice on the subject, among women. Most of the time, i have dressed for whatever work i was doing. In public, i choose clothing that proclaims my mood, political view, affiliations - as a form of self-expression.
A good deal of the criticizm of women's appearance by other women is on the order of: She's not making the most of herself. If we were all that competitive, wouldn't we rather encourage other women to look worse, in order to make ourselves look better by comparison?

I believe that polygamy has a much better chance of working in a society than polyandry, because women are natural conspirators. (I may catch a little flak for this, but it's true. In that kind of society - in most societies! - it's the only power women have.) And they don't worry about the paternity of their children (except when the wrong paternity is a handicap to the child). The wives of a Mormon elder may compete for advantage and status, but it will rarely come to blows, as male competition tends to do.

One last quibble. I also believe that human males need a close, deep, emotionally supportive relationship as much as females do - maybe more. Not at age 20, when most girls are ready to settle down, but later in life. Sure, some damn fools have it and toss it away for sexual conquest (short-term ego gratification) or a 'prize' mate (and whom is that supposed to impress, if not other men?), but men live longer and are happier in stable marriages.

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

Consequently, we, parents, did what unliberated generation before us did - while hoping our feminist friends weren't around, give our little girls dolls and cute dresses because they were obviously much happier with these than the toy cranes and wooden mallets and pegs which delighted the little boys. Meanwhile, we got tired of little Sunshine continually screaming in despair and misery because little Merlin treated the playroom like a construction site - we'll give the girls their own play space and send the boys to play in the yard with their rubber swords. You get my point?

---

quote:

---

Your other point, Rebeccah:
"Does the rather execrable Dr. Chesler have any practical thoughts on how to raise our daughters (ed. Why exclude sons?) to be kinder, better humans? Apparently not."

Isn't this another straw issue?:

---

Spring, I'm pointing out that Chesler's all spin and no content. She's exploiting a media trend to further her own career, offering nothing new, nothing substantial, nothing particularly well-referenced. Susan Faludi she ain't. She admits that she wants to create a new myth about women being mean and spiteful and back-stabbing. Well, is this new 'women are mean' stereotype any more valid than the old 'women are caring nurturers'? It's all superficial rubbish. Women, and men, are complex creatures who act in a variety of ways for a variety of reasons. Some are better (or worse) than others.

Wait! Some...people...are better...or...worse than others... boy howdy, I smell a best-seller. Call my agent! Where's my Salon interview, damnit!

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

Oh, yeah, I did....

quote:

---

Stating that all women are nurturing or that all women are nasty to each other is ridiculous. Women are people. People are kind and mean in varying degrees over both genders.

---

Hey, Rebecca, can I co-write?

Or at least get the movie rights?

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: Zoot Capri ]

"Spring, I'm pointing out that Chesler's all spin and no content."

You say you are pointing that out, but you do no such thing, Rebeccah. You are expressing that as your opinion. And, otherwise, you (and others) react by attacking Chesler while skipping past what she's actually saying. In fact, you come close to making part of Chesler's case for her.

Your characterization of my use of the name Sunshine for the fictional little girl as "snide" is an indication of your reactive approach - you attribute destructive or negative motives to me and others whose views differ from the ones upon which you apparently rely a little too much. In doing so, you are being the unsolicited psychic for your readers.

When you really think about it Rebeccah, I'm sure you agree too that respect for others, including those whose beliefs challenge our own - not judging them guilty of one evil or another (eg. Chesler "exploiting" the media for career purposes only) without any real proof - is a good way to start creating a better world for us all (and not just for our little girls either).

quote:

---

Hey, Rebecca, can I co-write?

---

Firstly, "all spin and no content" is in reference to the work that Chesler has produced -- and, in my opinion, is fairly accurate. She's creating a big fooferah out of the bleeding obvious, ie: that women are sometimes mean to each other.

She doesn't seem to be offering any solutions, and promotes one half of the stereotypical dichotomy that women are supposed to fit into: nice girl/bitch.

quote:

---

(you get movie rights, I get points on distribution, deal? )

---

Chesler has spun mainstream into so-called feminism and feminism into mainstream to supply a glossy varnish to her banal pop psychology. There ain't nuthin' new here but the spin.

Hey Zoot, they'll love this in Hollywood! Bland, predictable, chock full of stereotypes that fulfill the mainstream's expectations...all we need is a crotch-shot of a sexy serial killer, and Joe Esterhaus as producer, and let the filthy lucre roll in.

Of course you realize, if there were a hell, we'd both being doing a swan dive into the sulphur lake over this travesty of filmaking...

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

quote:

---

Of course you realize, if there were a hell, we'd both being doing a swan dive into the sulphur lake over this travesty of filmaking...

---

Nonesuch, lets get past this idea that men are in constant brawl mode. Male behavior has a lot dynamics specifically designed to avoid violent confrontation. Men can't afford to be fighting at the drop of a hat, either in our current civilization, or in our primative past.

And, aggressive, bullying, openly ambitoius types of males do not generally suceed, and are certainly not the leader of choice amoungst men.

quote:

---

And, aggressive, bullying, openly ambitoius types of males do not generally suceed, and are certainly not the leader of choice amoungst men.

---

*coughChainsaw Alcough*

quote:

---

So far, no North Amarican middle-class trend in child-rearing has made better new humans.
Okay, let's try something different.
Let's demolish consumer-culture, scrap the violent entertainments, take the barriers out from between classes and make basic health, security, meaningful work, education and opportunity equally available to all.
I predict that little boys and little gilrs will still be different in temperament and taste - but that both will be far less destructive and mean to one another than they are now.
Bets?

---

I agree!! Let's get rid of the disgusting beer ads that show a young man coming of age by going to a strip bar. And lets get rid of the anorexic women urging our daughters to buy into the beauty myth. To me the two are the flip side of the same coin. It is the the culture of greed and instant gratification that is really the problem not any inherent human gender traits.

Both girls and boys are subjected to a capitalist popular culture that continually bombards them with misogynist violence and macho posturing. We need a radical shift in the media images and stories that are the daily diet of most of our children.