111662FE-25A5-4E34-9298-EC746B9CE55C.jpg
I thought this was an interesting picture.
111662FE-25A5-4E34-9298-EC746B9CE55C.jpg
I thought this was an interesting picture.
Deborah
My desire is to create an illusion that is a compliment to all women.
It is meant to uphold and celebrate their presence and beauty.
I don't think I would understand that even if I was a natal female?
U can't keep doing the same things over and over and expect to enjoy life to the max. When u try new things, even if they r out of your comfort zone, u may experience new excitement and growth that u never expected.
Challenge yourself and pursue your passions! When your life clock runs out, you'll have few or NO REGRETS!
Part of women's month suggests, as a woman, you should have the courage to tell another woman direct when she has offended, hurt or disappointed you.
I would be a little concerned someone might start a cat fight. Trust in confrontation?
Candice Coleen Kowal ....all my friends call me Candy!
Interesting meme indeed! Like the Doc, I'm scratching my head over what this might mean. "Be trustworthy," yes, "support other women," but in what ways precisely? Or to turn this around, I guess it's an admonition against some form of betrayal, or hostility toward other women, perhaps some form of behavior that women especially are reputed to be guilty of. But what, precisely?
Well, it could be an admonition against starting cat fights over petty issues. That's one form of avoidable hostility. But that seems contradicted by the advice to confront another woman who's offended you. That must run some risk of starting a fight between the two women.
Fair enough, at least one can be "trusted" to be honest with another woman--whether she likes it or not! But I don't see how failure to confront amounts to a "betrayal," or to lack of trustworthiness. isn't it just "keeping the peace"?
I'm not sure what other ideas come to mind. One is that women's worst critics are said to be other women! Maybe it's about that. Another is women's reputed inability to keep a secret. That really is about "trust," and betrayal of a confidence. So it seems a good candidate for an explanation. Mind you, I must say my own wife has always been good at keeping secrets, so I can't complain.
I tend to get the confidence of women and then they forget what I really am.
Work on your elegance,
and beauty will follow.
It's a high bar to meet!! That boat has sailed as far as my wife.... she doesn't want me to be a woman and she sure doesn't trust me.... sigh....
If you're not a woman, you probably wouldn't get it.
Calling bigotry an "opinion" is like calling arsenic a "flavor".
Clear as crystal for a GG : sisterhood and empowerment 💪
@Deborah, curious about your reason for posting it !
Some answers are quite perplexing...
When Hilory Clinton lost the election I couldn't believe it, my niece works in the HR department where she works. She told me while in training thay taught her that women are jealous of other woman and almost guarantees no women voted for her. But one would think with the women movement they would want a women president, I guess we have to be a women to understand it.
Certainly, Miel, it seemed obvious to me that it's an admonition to support other women--or "empower" them, if you like. What I don't get is the significance of the word "trust." Its existence implies an opposite--"distrust"--the kind of woman other women can not trust. The kind of woman who "disempowers" other women. But in what way, precisely? And why should it apply to women in particular? Does jealousy explain it, as Maria suggested? Are women more jealous of each other than men are? Or is it just a general observation about the fact that some humans behave badly, in any number of ways? Am I overthinking this?
Deborah
My desire is to create an illusion that is a compliment to all women.
It is meant to uphold and celebrate their presence and beauty.
We can agree on the fact that humans behave badly sometimes.
However the context here is important because you cannot truly understand the meaning of the quote without a good understanding of how discrimination works (and I cannot explain it in details here). This kind of quote is specific to groups suffering from inequalities who are dealing with members who do not realise how the discrimination system works and whose actions, intentional or not, maintain this system. In this case women.
It is a feminist quote. Being feminist is being a trusty person for another GG. Being feminist is being particularly attentive to not devaluate another GG, helping her to be more self confident and successfully achieve her goals. But all women aren't feminists.
An example : in the western partriarchal society women have to be good housekeepers. When having a reception, still today, some GGs will judge negatively their hostess if she hasn't done the cooking herself or if the house isn't immaculate. Why ? Because they have integrated the rules defined by men and don't question the rules. They aren't supportive of the GG who acts differently although she has her own reasons to do so (maybe she doesn't like cooking or she wants her husband to take part of housekeeping or she was too busy with her job/child/elder or she simply prefers to make something else of her free time...).They aren't women another woman can trust.
Thanks for your answer, that's my guess about your post.
For the reason I explained before I assume it will be a difficult goal for a CD. Based on my readings here, quite a few reduce being a woman to looking like one. If you willingly reduce women to their appearance (and often a fantasied/stereotyped one) and show no interest in the real life and discrimination GGs endure then you are not allowed to say you understand women and far from being one.
On the other hand, if one is feminist he could be a trusty CD. There is hope !
It's easy to say a few White Lies when you don't want to hurt someone's feelings. It could also be easy to say that dress looks great on you when actually you're thinking all eyes will be on you instead because it really doesn't make her look good. Lots of different reasons women may not trust each other.
Let's fix that:
Be a human other humans can trust.
We get carried away with the aesthetics of *being* a woman, let's be good humans.
Monica, that's where I am. In every post above, exchange the word 'woman' with something else and see how it plays.
I've waited so long for this time. Makeup is so frustrating. Shaking hands and I look so old. This was a mistake.
My new maid's outfit is cute. Sure fits tight.
And then I step into the bedroom and in the mirror, I see a beautiful woman looking back at me.
Smile, Honey! You look fabulous!
May be I could say that meme doesn't apply yo crossdressers because they are not women but in my case it has been a reality.
As a man I dissapointed my wife in different ways man always do with their misconception of what means to be a man, so being a woman I could understand how poisoning the testosterone is and being free of it I have now my heart and mind aligned in a different way that has resulted better for my wife.
I'm now a better person because I'm a woman but not in competition with my wife, that's a very common situation between women, so that meme points to that situation of being transparent and honest.
HRT 042018; Full time 032019
Orchiectomy 062020; gender& name legal changed 102020
Electrolysis face begins 082019, in genitals for GCS 062021
Breast augmentation surgery 012022
GCS 072022; BBL 022023; GCS revision 04203;END TRANSITION
Miel, the example you quoted interested me for several reasons worth mentioning at length. I notice most of the posts here tend to be short, so I hope I'll be forgiven a very long post.
Yes, it's a good example of how some women can undermine another woman's self esteem and goals by judging her negatively for being a poor cook or housekeeper. Or a "bad mother," which you didn't say, but it is implicit in what you said about women who would rather devote time to something else, such as a career. Fair enough, point taken!
However, I don't see anything uniquely "Western" about women cooking or caring for the home. Women do these things pretty much the world over: in Russia, China, Japan, the Mideast, South America... In Mumbai wives at home cook lunch for their husbands while the renowned dabbawala service delivers these "tiffin boxes" to their husbands who work in the city.
More relevant. when women criticize other women for "falling short" of certain standards, it's not "men's rules" they're enforcing, but women's rules and women's standards, far more than men's. I grant of course that plenty of men would grumble if their wives didn't put food on the table, or left the house in an unholy mess. But that's a lower level of expectation.
Take cooking for instance. Plenty of women love cooking--like the sister-in-law I mentioned in a recent post (and many others too). Many women "bond around" cooking, among other activities, the way men "bond around" more typically male topics, from cars to carpentry. Of course individuals vary widely, and I do realize some women hate to cook and just see it as a chore.
However, the point I'm making is that men by and large are happy enough as long as food tastes good and fills their stomach. It's more often women who are concerned with the finer points not only of cuisine, but especially, of nutrition, whether food is "healthy," the calories and carbs and possible toxic ingredients and all the rest of it. Women read the warning labels, while men gobble down what's inside regardless. (A stereotype, as with all "gender" things, but a tendency nonetheless.) Come to that, there are some men who are irritated by their wives' insistence on serving "healthy" food and prefer to eat junk food!
This doesn't have to be "Western" either. I ran across this from a Saudi woman who is fluent in English, working in business, with little time to spare in her life, who just the same feels compelled to fulfill what she sees as her domestic responsibilities:
Now... most Saudi women have their maids cook for them... my husband doesn?t really mind, but I cannot think of a woman, who is a total stranger to cook for me and my family and transfer her energy to them! Besides, I?m an excellent cook and I?m a really picky eater. I want my husband and kids to eat clean, tasty, and healthy food. I don?t want to be under the control and mercy of a maid, who might decide to leave all of a sudden and who is basically not a trained cook nor a professional house manager; she is just a helper at home. It?s my house and my family, and I?m responsible for them.
Her sense of responsibility, her natural need for control over her domain, and her pride in doing things well all stand out. And she makes it clear that this is not something her husband is "forcing" her to do. These urges come from inside herself, no matter how "patriarchal" Mideastern culture may be compared with our own. (I have to admire her for that.) And if somebody criticizes a woman--complaining for example that "she's not feeding her kids properly"--it's more likely to be another woman rather than a man who does that.
The point seems clearer still when it comes to housekeeping. Generally speaking, women like to keep a neat, clean and attractive home, even when they're living alone, so men have nothing to do with it. Men of course appreciate that, but here again, men's standards on average are lower. A typical "bachelor pad" is likely to be cluttered, less elegant, and most important of all, dustier and dirtier. Research has confirmed that women have less tolerance for dirt than men do. Some theorize that the evolutionary basis for this is the avoidance of pathogens to which children are particularly vulnerable, since women have always been more involved in child and especially infant care.
So if a woman criticizes another woman for failing to keep an immaculate home, it's women's standards she's enforcing, not men's. In any case keeping a fine home can be one way that women compete with other women for status. Some women are downright "houseproud" in ways that actually irritate their husbands. who are told "don't do this, don't do that; you'll make a mess." Generally a man wouldn't care if his hostess's house was not completely spotless. But there are women who would draw a finger across their hostess's mantelshelf and remark to a friend "Look at that! She doesn't even dust!" I couldn't imagine a man doing such a thing. Women's instincts, women's standards, women's rules. People have standards for their own sex that they expect other members to uphold, and look down on those who fall short. With men it's things like being "tough," and a man who isn't "tough enough" is a "wimp" or a "sissy." Women have standards for themselves in quite different areas, including cleanliness. Anyway all this fits with my earlier conjecture that the meme related to the well-known observation that "women's worst critics are other women."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
In spite of all that, it turns out that's got nothing to do with the meaning of the meme. I suspected all along that there was something behind it that was not being explained. So in the end I Googled it and found it was only the first sentence of a more complete quotation. It's on a poster here, but I won't display it because it's too big and overflows the screen. It's from the journalist and author Sophia A. Nelson (born 1967), who said this:
Be a woman other women can trust. Have the courage to tell another woman direct when she has offended, hurt or disappointed you. Successful women have a loyal tribe of loyal and honest women behind them. Not haters. Not backstabbers or women who whisper behind their back. Be a woman who lifts other women.
So that explains Candy's remarks about "confrontation" and so on that I couldn't make sense of before. Obviously I had a mental block. In my mind if someone had offended me there were only two alternatives: to confront, or not to confront. (Echoes of Hamlet's "to be or not to be.") It didn't occur to me that there was a third alternative: namely, to go dragging third parties into a petty and purely personal dispute between two people. I suppose I might grumble to someone else; but grumbling is just grumbling, a mere venting of feelings that stops there. This is about something more: about triangulating third parties into the dispute and actively whipping up hostility against the offender, orchestrating a kind of "vendetta by proxy." Not a nice practice at all, especially since the target doesn't know she's being targeted or why, and what to do about it. I certainly agree that people who do this are not to be trusted. At least tactful confrontation is honest.
Deborah, to me the meme states that women don't trust each other.
Please call me Jamie, I always_have crossdressed, I always will, "alwayshave".
The term womxn (/ˈwʊmən/) is an alternative spelling of the English word woman. Womxn has been found in writing since the 1970s, along with the term womyn, to avoid perceived sexism in the standard spelling, which contains the word "man"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womxn#...rd%20%22man%22.
Better keep up!
Escapism isn't necessarily bad, but is definitely unhealthy in the long term. While helpful in the short term, things will degrade over time. At some point, the escapee will have to face the issue. Things simply blowing over isn't really going to happen in many situations.
I chose to focus on Western women because we are discussing a complicated theme and it would have otherwise required long explanations in relation to cultural differences. And of course because the vast majority of CD s are westerners here... Not many posts about saris (thanks for posting @manemami), boubous or kimonos...
It is difficult to understand gender discriminations without taking a step back from your personal observations. You cannot ignore the fact that we are living in a bi-gendered system in which men are in control. This control leads to the division among female activities and male activities, the less valued going to women (care of childrens, seniors, sick people, ... and house). So I cannot suscribe to your affirmation : More relevant. when women criticize other women for "falling short" of certain standards, it's not "men's rules" they're enforcing, but women's rules and women's standards, far more than men's. because it is first and foremost men's rules which are operating here. How can one not see that if a woman is criticizing another woman it is for the most part because she has subconsciously internalized men's rules ?
Sorry, I have to disagree. The whole quote underlines the importance for a woman to be surrounded by supportive women who will empower her. Being supportive doesn't mean you can't disagree but you will not undermine. Please re-read what I said about feminists above.
Most of y’all are probably unaware of this, but women are often conditioned by society to backstab, betray, and cut each other down. You probably call this cattiness. This is a powerful tool of the patriarchy to keep women subservient and disorganized, so really this meme speaks to some fundamental realities of our world.
Though I haven't had the time to read Emile, I did take a glance at Wikipedia's summary of the contents, and found, among other things:
Rousseau states that women should be "passive and weak", "put up little resistance" and are "made specially to please man"
Admittedly he adds that "man ought to please her in turn." However, it's easy to see why Mary Wollstonecraft objected so vehemently to the book--and to that Roussellian dictum especially, I'm sure!
Well, I read the Wikipedia article you quoted on "womxn," and I must admit this spelling was new to me. However, I was thoroughly familiar with "womyn" since way back. All I can say is that if "womyn" hasn't caught on among the public in half a century, it's unlikely to do so now. Language evolves the way the majority of people want it to, and all past attempts at "spelling reform" (for whatever reason) have gone to the wall. Let alone attempts to introduce "genderless" pronouns and possessives.
About the only feminist language innovation to be generally adopted is the term "Ms," which at least is useful and practical for referring to a woman when we don't know if she's married or single (or divorced). Besides, we can mumble the word "Ms" in such a way that nobody can be sure whether we're saying "Miss," "Ms," or "Mrs."
When it comes to a singular for "womyn," the one I have seen a long time ago is "womon." It has appeared less often, but that's because for some reason people talk of women in the plural far more than they do in the singular. That's why people (including myself) often find themselves typing "a women" when they mean "a woman." They never type "a men" (unless they're concluding a prayer), So "womon" hasn't been seen so often. But at least it conforms to the normal rules of English pronunciation. If these people are serious about trying to get the public to adopt alternative spellings, their chances are slim enough as it is, so why compromise them further? Why not at least pick a sensible spelling, instead of one (like "womxn") that people are most likely to reject as absurd?
Actually I don't disagree with that statement at all. As I said in an earlier post, the first part of the quote was self-evidently an exhortation to women to support other women. And by extension, not undermine them. The only point I was making was that this is a general statement, while the quote turned out to be focused on a specific way in which some women undermine other women.
Admittedly my personal observations were directed toward the limited topics of cooking and home care that were originally brought up. But taking a giant step back to view the Western world (in particular) at large, it's obvious from this and another, later statement that our understandings of the world are simply poles apart! I can't see us agreeing any time soon.
There's so much involved here that it's hard to know where to begin--and more important, where to stop! But briefly, if we're talking about "gender roles" in the workplace, say, we only live in a partially gendered society with enormous overlap between what men do and what women do. That's to be expected, since men and women tend to be born different in the first place, with different aptitudes, capabilities, and preferences--again with a lot of overlap. These differences are due to Nature, not to any rules set by men. And if women are "more liberated" today than they were in the past, that's because we're living in better conditions than we used to, thanks to technologies of all kinds for which men have been largely responsible.
I say "partially" gendered because, for instance, over one third of doctors and lawyers are women. In the U.S., that is. On the other hand, only two percent of plumbers and auto mechanics are women--even though these jobs pay more than some of the "caring" jobs you mentioned. Most women don't want to do those jobs. "Just try getting women into the trades," said one recruiter. "It's like pulling teeth!"
That reflects for one thing that women prefer to work with people, while more men are happy working with "things"--an innate tendency to difference between the sexes. These differences show up even if I translate them back into a single profession: medicine. Women are free to be doctors, and specialize however they like--internal medicine, oncology, cardiology, whatever. The reasons why women choose one specialty over another itself tells us something about women's preferences. While 35 percent of doctors as a whole are women, nearly two-thirds, 63 percent, of pediatricians are women. This reflects women's maternal instinct to care for children. Over half, 57 percent, of Ob/Gyns are women. That's obvious: it's all about women and babies. The only reason why it's less attractive than pediatrics is that it can involve surgery, and women prefer "softer," less "mechanical" methods of healing. They also love "talk therapy." About two-thirds of psychotherapists are women. What's bottom of the league? Only five percent of those in orthopedics are women. That's all about "ball joint replacement" and whatnot. Women can recognize auto mechanics, even when it's in disguise, and they stay away from it in droves!
To that extent, men and women both are tending to obey Nature's rules rather than "men's rules," with a lot of flexibility of course. As for who makes "society's" rules, they're not "men's" rules so much as the outcome of a complex and often subtle negotiation between men and women. (I'm reminded of ellbee's remark on another thread about "the systemic oppression men face on a daily basis.") When it comes to laws, in the U.S. a quarter of the House and of the Senate is female. I understand that's about the world average. In France I gather it's even higher, something like 39 percent women. So on the face of it that's "partially gendered." However, that doesn't take into account the fact that these officials are elected. And more women vote than men. in the U.S. anyway. So a politician has to pay attention to what women want, otherwise he's out of office.
I'm afraid I don't see that at all. To start with, women are often competitive, or have different values from other women, so there are all kinds of ordinary reasons for them to disagree or criticize. Just as an example, mobs of women enforcing morality by calling another woman a... well, that word gets bleeped here, so let's just say "no better than she should be" (as the phrase goes), because she is "breaking the rules" by offering herself as unfair competition for their husbands and boyfriends. These are society's rules about sexual behavior, fidelity and "not poaching," in which married men and women both have an interest. As for internalizing men's rules, I know of no evidence that such a process is taking place. Women are not robots, not "Stepford wives" programmed by men. They're human beings with a will of their own. "Society's" rules no doubt are internalized to some degree by all of us, not just by women. But those are the outcome of a society-wide negotiation, not just "men's" rules, and also vary from one subculture to another. I think you're attributing too much power to men that they really don't have.
There are different types of feminism, and what people think of "feminism" depends very much on what type they have in mind--if indeed they know. I was just looking at a Washington Post poll on "What Americans Think about Feminism." Overall, opinions tended to be supportive, including those of many men, though there was naturally a gender divide. I have little doubt that what most people had in mind was what Christina Hoff Sommers called "equity" feminism, which has become mainstream and most people support: equal pay and opportunities for women and so forth, which Sommers called "as American as apple pie." (Wyoming, a Western pioneer state, first gave the vote to women as early as 1869, as I expect you know.) However, what you're championing seems to be the "radical" kind. One question asked respondents whether "the feminist movement" unfairly blames men for women's challenges. 64 percent of women and 43 percent of women said No. I think they'd change their minds in a hurry if they read of men being blamed, not only for women's lifestyle choices (the subject of another question), but even for women's own bad behavior toward other women. That really is quite a stretch.
This sounds to me like a secularized version of "the Devil made me do it." From what I gather of her background, I'm pretty sure the author of the quotation would be shocked and disappointed to hear such a suggestion, when her goal was to persuade "untrustworthy" women to take responsibility for their behavior toward other women, not to fabricate excuses for blaming it on "society" or on men--all the more implausible when no men are involved.
Assuming that women are in fact more prone than men to this kind of "behind-your-back" behavior, I would attribute the cause, not to "society," but to individual biopsychology. Women on average are more "socially oriented" than men and when faced with what they see as a "problem"--which includes feeling "offended" by another woman--are more likely to seek a "social solution," which involves seeking help from, and alliances with, others. Unfortunately this is harmful behavior if it results in a woman being unknowingly and unfairly targeted by these allies, or a "catfight" that divides a formerly harmonious group into opposing factions. Men on the other hand are usually less sensitive to "slights" in the first place, but more to the point, men faced with a "problem" are more likely to want to deal with it themselves if they can. Or to just "tough it out." So if they've got a purely personal "issue" with another man, they more often see it as "my fight, not someone else's," and they're less likely to make the fight "spill over" by involving third parties. Of course men also fight among themselves--all that testosterone, y'know--but usually more openly, I would say.
Lori, since you are alluding to biopsychology, I'm interested in what genes or physical specificities would make genetic women resort to backstabbing more than their XY-based companions?
As you are discarding "society" as a cause, do you think that our behaviors are based solely on biology?
See Schopenhauer's " on Women"
The classic thesis is men control societal resources and ultimately all women compete on one playing field - attraction from men, for this reason men and women cannot be friends because a man has one reason to become friends
with a woman but many to befriend a man.
The wife would not accept another woman with a strong sports interests attending baseball games with her hubby because she believes here primary interest is really him - not baseball - but she has no such concerns per se if he attends with a male friend.
Another effect , according to Rousseau and Schopenhauer , is women care more about what others think than men and ultimately they rank one opinion above all else - the opinion of the man she has found favor with,
so she worries what others may think if she is seen to interact with a man not her hubby - her view is that in can be seen as evidence of a romance past, present or future.
Schopenhauer suggests inter female conflict is ultimately from odium figulinum or " trade jealousy" .
Last edited by kellyanne; 04-01-2021 at 02:48 PM.