Male feminists?

[Ormond]

[quote name='Eponine' post='1736825' date='Mar 28 2009, 09.37']The PCUSA has this to say:
[i]Presbyterians trace their history to the 16th century and the Protestant Reformation. Our heritage, and much of what we believe, began with John Calvin (1509-1564), whose writings crystallized much of the Reformed thinking that came before him.[/i]
I realize that this is not the same as endorsing his every word as if it were a new scripture. However, as a non-believer myself, the way that the modern church acts like their founders never said a lot of the things they said sounds to me a lot like the backpedaling that the Mormons do over the early beliefs of their church, which a lot of Protestants mock.[/quote]

I don't "mock" the LDS for deciding that some of Joseph Smith's ideas weren't correct. Although there is a difference between Smith and Calvin because Calvin never claimed to be a "prophet."

To say one's "heritage began with John Calvin" is the same as an American saying their "heritage began with the signers of the Declaration of Independence." That doesn't mean that as an American you agree with everything the founders believed or did, it's just an appreciation of the historical place you came from.

To some extent I can understand where you are coming from. But it also seems to me like "unbelievers like yourself" are still taking a fundamentalist attitude when you object to modern moderate or liberal Christians who have concluded that not everything the Bible or "the founders" said was correct. It seems like you are still affected by the fundamentalist idea that either "everything in the Bible is correct or you can't believe any of it." It seems like you are now on the other side of that belief, but still affected by that sort of "black and white" thinking.

Not that any of the above will help you much with your father. Many Pentecostals, by the way, have had rather egalitarian attitudes toward women, though if your father is of the Baptist/antideluvian Presbyterian variety of fundamentalist, he probably believes Pentecostals are possessed by the devil when they speak in tongues, any way. :dunno:

[Eponine]

[quote name='Ormond' post='1736878' date='Mar 28 2009, 12.08']To some extent I can understand where you are coming from. But it also seems to me like "unbelievers like yourself" are still taking a fundamentalist attitude when you object to modern moderate or liberal Christians who have concluded that not everything the Bible or "the founders" said was correct. It seems like you are still affected by the fundamentalist idea that either "everything in the Bible is correct or you can't believe any of it." It seems like you are now on the other side of that belief, but still affected by that sort of "black and white" thinking.[/quote]

I honestly don't care about liberal Christians, and I don't mean that in a nasty way. You can believe whatever you want, and as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights, I respect that. I feel the need to engage certain evangelicals and fundamentalists because I feel that my life has been infringed upon in a harmful way or because they're still a large part of my life, not for the joy of proving them wrong. So I hope that you understand that I'm not trying to criticize you or liberal Christianity even though I don't share your beliefs.

Personally, though, I don't have any interest in picking and choosing things from the Bible. I do agree with fundamentalists insofar as it seems somewhat ridiculous to me to start regarding the bits that you like to be the truth of God, while rejecting parts you don't like as cultural or mythical. I can understand an almost purely liberal view of deciding that the Bible is a fictional book with some good principles, and you'll use the good principles to help illustrate your deistic but humanist beliefs. However, in my experience, I've seen that a good number of moderate churches believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus as payment for men's sins (even if they don't believe in a literal hell), and I admit that I don't really understand why they've picked this part to be non-mythical, when they don't generally hold with other supernatural stories.

Although this doesn't seem to have anything to do with feminism, the expectations and roles for women in fundamentalism were what first started my break with Christianity and eventually had me leaving the church completely. However, we've gotten pretty far off topic, so maybe we should either drop this discussion until more appropriate or continue via PM/email.

[Lady Blackfish]

I have absolutely no idea why male feminists can't exist. As useful as it is to reject "white knights", it is also useful to recognize that sometimes the accusation is a tool used to discourage men from engaging in (valid) feminism. I don't know why a male feminist can't theoretically be sincere, and no I don't think it's true that a power transfer can't happen if males count themselves as feminists. What needs to be avoided is the idea that women have power only so long as men tolerate it, but that's not the same, IMO.

I really don't understand how the linguistic humanism vs feminism argument can be [i]more[/i] important than the ideals that are shared by a significant portion, if not the majority, of those who self-identify as either. And I don't get why the "baggage" latched on to feminism is any good reason to abandon it, especially since the good done in the name of feminism far far [i]far[/i] outweighs the straw feminism stereotypes. If you prefer to call yourself a humanist instead, fine, but don't propagate the stereotypes of feminists as radical feminazi shrews. Try getting away with that with a race rights activist.

Feminism is called feminism because it specifically addresses the historical disparity between men and women. I believe, years ago on this board, I had said that the problem with this is that the more we erase disparity, the less it makes sense because it is context-dependent. Lyanna Stark, IIRC, rightly put me in my place. The biggest trap (or counter-trap, if you prefer) is to think that we are anywhere near post-feminism. Simply because we are closer than we were before is no reason to think post-feminism is here, it is very much not (see: privilege issues). Feminism is not misandry, and a board this intelligent knows better than that.

About the gendered strategies in the workplace, etc -- dissociation of traits from gender is the "mainstream" feminist stance, at least among young feminists. It is, believe it or not, quite possible to believe a woman can be as competitive, argumentative, etc, as men are traditionally allowed to be without denigrating traditionally female strategies like cooperation, consensus, etc (or putting down a quiet person). All it means is you think either guys or gals can be either cooperative or competitive. It's really not that hard a stance to stake out. To defend in practice, sure, but that goes for a lot of feminism.

I certainly don't get the defense of complacency just because we're better off now than we were 200 years (or whatnot) ago.

And of course you can criticize gender dynamics outside the west. Wow, feminists aren't all white.

Most of all, I don't understand why you people decided to have these interesting conversations while I'm gone. When I am gone, that is the signal for the world to go on pause, I thought that was clear?


ETA:

[quote name='Eponine' post='1736123' date='Mar 27 2009, 14.11']I think that often it stems from an unfair way that women treat other women, with a basis in sexism, only it's a sexism that some women perpetuate against one another for what they shallowly perceive to be their own advantage. There's an implicit idea that the "winner" in a group of women is the one who gets noticed the most by men- and not just as a sex object, but as being the "smart" one or the one who is "like the guys, not like the other girls". And in a mixed group, the woman who speaks up can be at risk of being put right back down or suffering other social slights by her peers. I'm sure there are other factors, but there are some I've noticed.

And it's tempting, I'll be the first to admit. In both my grad program and my current career field, there's a majority of men. There's also a desire on the part of many if not most people in the field to diversify and to remove gender and race related obstacles. It puts me in the position of being a desirable employee. And I've had the thought that if we become flooded with smart, competent, female professionals, my own position won't be so special anymore. It's something that needs to happen, but it's also something that forces me to be actively unselfish.[/quote]

You are talking about the queen bee/honorary male mindset. It is, indeed, lame. Breaking ranks with/distancing yourself from other (shrewish/predictable/vapid/etc) wimminfolk means you are cool and all the boys will like you, that's the general idea. Teehee, I'm the girl in the room that likes sports, teehee, I'm the girl in the room that knows math, etc. (I love math, tennis and basketball, so no this is not about the liking, it's about the status that is imagined to be conferred on one's self because of the awareness of the gender implications.)

That does not negate the ability of women and feminists and whatever to legitimately disagree with each other. Nobody wants individuality more than self-identified feminists, in my experience. But neither does the honorary male mindset need to be indulged, it's as sexist a relic as anything else. I don't know how else to view a mad dash for male acceptance, as if only a certain number or kinds of women can be accommodated, I don't see how that is seen as egalitarian.

But for the record, benevolent sexism in women is supposedly correlated to hostile sexism in men.

[kiko]

[quote name='denstorebog' post='1735108' date='Mar 27 2009, 03.42']Is it an oxymoron? Can males actually be feminists?

I've experienced being called out on my opinions on account of being male here in GC once in a while. There's a segment of feminist women who believe that the idea of pro-feminist males runs counter to the essential meaning of feminism. Personally, I totally see the merits of this idea; [b]a true transfer of power cannot come about if it happens only by the good graces of the power holders. [/b][/quote]


What kind of power can I transfer? And to whom exactly?

[Guest Raidne]

Okay, finally have time to really respond to all this.

[quote name='Eloisa' post='1735913' date='Mar 27 2009, 12.46']I entirely agree both that the perception of the existence of the "female" negotiating style is harmful and that accepting greater female aggression would be beneficial. However, your argument appears to presuppose:

a) that everyone's going to accept greater female aggression right away - I am coming from a position that this is simply not happening even when people try to make it happen;
b) that learned passive behaviours and/or negotiator styles are capable of being wiped out immediately upon someone trying to do so - I am coming from a position that this is or may be difficult due to upbringing etc.;
and most crucially c) that having grown up in a gender-unequal society has no effect on the way the personality is expressed - I am coming from a position that social norms affect people's actions.[/quote]

First, we should probably say female "assertiveness" instead of "aggression" so I'm going to switch the terminology we've been using.

On (a) no, I don't think people accept female assertiveness right away, but I would disagree that it's not happening. At the highest levels, we couldn't have Hillary Clinton running for President, and at more everyday levels, women wouldn't be seen at so many levels of management. OTOH, it's not like there isn't push back on those issues - lots of it - but I don't think you can say that it's not happening. On (b) and ©, this is really difficult for me to say. For one, some people will always be passive, that would be their personality regardless of gender issues. Secondly, there are strong cultural differences, e.g. in the United States assertive personalities are in general perhaps more readily accepted than other places. For another, I was a fairly shy passive person until maybe high school, really disliked that about myself, and so I got into speech and debate and made a real effort to change that. And it worked. I guess what I'm saying is that I think there's room for your position on that issue, but also room for mine.

In the end, it's just pragmatic. You can't legislate personality changes even when they have social causes, so there's no policy solution to that issue (you know, I have argued before for mandatory public education so at least we don't have this problem of members of the next generation of women growing up in private religious school, or home-schooled and never having any exposure to the idea of gender equality, but that's the only kind of applicable policy solution I can think of, and it would never - here anyway - pass Constitutional muster because it violates a whole host of other basic human rights).

What the main thrust of my argument has been is that you also can't accommodate the idea that women are made more passive than is desirable by social factors by catering to passive women without reinforcing harmful sexist stereotypes.

So, either, it's simply an awareness issue, in which case I have no problem with the points you're making, or it's something we actually want to [i]do[/i] something about, in which case the change is going to have to come from the individuals themselves, or it's simply not going to happen. It's not ideal, sure, it's not often the individual woman's fault that she finds herself in that situation, but there's simply no other way to go about changing it.

Maybe this is really the source of our disagreement, to the extent we have one - you're talking about raising awareness, and I'm talking about what we should [i]do[/i] about it, moving forward. Is that fair?

And if not, we would [i]you[/i] suggest that we do to actually combat this problem of women not being heard due to social conditioning that favors agreeableness and passivity?

[quote]In the UK, far more men get pay rises than women... because more men than women think that they have the right to ask for them. That's where your training should work.[/quote]

This is a great example. This is so, so true (there are other tricky factors as well - because of direct discrimination, men often have better alternative offers to use in negotiating a higher salary, too). But I can't premise a discrimination lawsuit on that fact. There's no way that would work. What would the evidence look like? What would the ramifications to other areas of the law be? There will be no solution to that problem from the outside. The [i]only[/i] thing we can do - pragmatically - is to train women [i]to[/i] ask for raises. It may not be idealistically fair, but that's why we call it pragmatism.

[Lyanna Stark]

[quote name='Lady Blackfish' post='1737147' date='Mar 28 2009, 23.34']You are talking about the queen bee/honorary male mindset. It is, indeed, lame. Breaking ranks with/distancing yourself from other (shrewish/predictable/vapid/etc) wimminfolk means you are cool and all the boys will like you, that's the general idea. Teehee, I'm the girl in the room that likes sports, teehee, I'm the girl in the room that knows math, etc. (I love math, tennis and basketball, so no this is not about the liking, it's about the status that is imagined to be conferred on one's self because of the awareness of the gender implications.)

That does not negate the ability of women and feminists and whatever to legitimately disagree with each other. Nobody wants individuality more than self-identified feminists, in my experience. But neither does the honorary male mindset need to be indulged, it's as sexist a relic as anything else. I don't know how else to view a mad dash for male acceptance, as if only a certain number or kinds of women can be accommodated, I don't see how that is seen as egalitarian.[/quote]

Welcome back Lady Blackfish. :)

I had to comment on the above since it is (another one?) of my pet peeves. I absolutely HATE when women get competitive with other women over male attention or just attention in general. Silanah/Chaldanya has an excellent signature that reflects this:

"I don't need anyone to blow out another woman's candle to make mine burn brighter."

but a lot of women seem to think this is *exactly* what you need to do.

It also seems to take two shapes:

1. Is the typical "Oh I have only male friends and only male interests. I drink beer with the guys and am one of them, while I just don't get on with women."

2. The femme fatale who tries to out-maneuever you by using flirting, sex or any other old fashioned womanly wiles she can think of.


Both types make me roll my eyes. I'm sure many women will nod in recognition at the descriptions. While type 1 isn't directly out to "blow out another woman's candle", (while type 2 obviously does) her actions and influences can still be quite insidious.

In this context, I have always found it even more important that women can have their own discussions and disagreements, to in some ways show that we're not fawning fangirls but actually real people, with real concerns and real personalities. In somes ways, I had discovered what it means to be The Other years before I met with de Beauvoir. A woman trying to be a man is only reinforcing her otherness. She knows she cannot become a man, yet instead of trying to accept that she is female and view that as default, as normal, she tries to pretend that she can, sort of, become a man. Sad, but a lot of women seem to think the only way to real recognition is to mimic what they see as the male ideal, or close to. Unless she is going the other route of the femme fatale, or a combination of the two, depending on what is "needed".

In my experience, you will get far more male acceptance (and acceptance in general) by just being yourself and standing up for yourself, as an individual; by accepting that you are female and instead fight the box that puts you in.

So yeah, girls and women everywhere, stop blowing out other women's candles to make yours burn brighter. Trust me, it won't.


Raidne:
[quote]And if not, we would you suggest that we do to actually combat this problem of women not being heard due to social conditioning that favors agreeableness and passivity?[/quote]

I think awareness is key here. Teachers being aware of possible bias towards girls in the classroom are probably more likely to make an effort to be neutral.

A couple of years they had a "movie" project in Sweden where I think it was pre-school teachers who considered themselves equal were filmed during their daily work with children. They got to view the films afterwards and were apparently shocked at how differently they treated boys and girls.

So in essence, raising people's awareness and showing people that no, post-feminism has not occurred and shouldn't occur yet. We're not in a position where men and women are equal in society. This also includes strong voices to disperse all the negative myths about feminism that seem to come from the media. I'm old fashioned in my belief in the power of information and knowledge. :)

[Errant Bard]

[quote name='Lyanna Stark' post='1738345' date='Mar 30 2009, 14.59']"I don't need anyone to blow out another woman's candle to make mine burn brighter."

but a lot of women seem to think this is *exactly* what you need to do.[/quote]But, that's not specific to women, (some) men will also undermine the opposition at every chance. The problem isn't the lack of women solidarity, but that the group in power to pander to is predominantly male.

[Lyanna Stark]

[quote name='Errant Bard' post='1738352' date='Mar 30 2009, 14.09']But, that's not specific to women, (some) men will also undermine the opposition at every chance. The problem isn't the lack of women solidarity, but that the group in power to pander to is predominantly male.[/quote]


Yes, but the men are not doing so by trying to become what they are not, or by only blocking people of their own gender. You don't see women exploiting this sort of behaviour to compete with men, you only see it when competing with other women.

Also, this is not about opposition in general, or competition in general, but specifically about gaining male favour in some way, by stepping on other women.

[Guest Raidne]

[quote name='Lyanna Stark' post='1738345' date='Mar 30 2009, 08.59']It also seems to take two shapes:

1. Is the typical "Oh I have only male friends and only male interests. I drink beer with the guys and am one of them, while I just don't get on with women."

2. The femme fatale who tries to out-maneuever you by using flirting, sex or any other old fashioned womanly wiles she can think of.

Both types make me roll my eyes. I'm sure many women will nod in recognition at the descriptions. While type 1 isn't directly out to "blow out another woman's candle", (while type 2 obviously does) her actions and influences can still be quite insidious.[/quote]

Yes, I am suspicious of any woman who announces that she only gets along with men. OTOH, as some of us may remember, I had a thread awhile back on how hard it has been for me, personally, to find female friends. I have to be a little reverse sexist here and say that in many ways, having and maintaining close friendships with women is even [i]more[/i] important to me than, especially, making new male friends, but I also find myself putting more time maintaining my relationships with the female friends that I do have.

Since I found myself without many female friends a few years back, I have made a couple really close female friends, one of whom I would consider my best friend, and met a few women from this board that I think are wonderful, intelligent people that I am lucky to have met, as well as interacted with numerous other women on this board that I would say the same about - disagreements or no.

OTOH, I have, in my effort to have more relationships with women, dealt with all manner of bullshit, back-stabbing, and general bad behavior of the sort that I have [i]never[/i] dealt with from male friends (who pretty much limit themselves to non-gender specific bad friend behaviors like being unsupportive and unrealiable). Mostly it can be summarized as helpless behavior, or competitive behavior.

Sadly, as we've discussed, all of these gender-specific bad friend behaviors can be traced back to the effects of sexism. Helpless woman plays on traditional gender roles to get men to do everything for her, and we're they are not available, she's so lost in the pattern of learned helplessness that she turns it on you. Competitive woman only feels good about herself when something bad happens to you because of the scarcity/token mindset we've been talking about.

So, while I agree with what Lyanna's saying in general, those are the thoughts I'd like to add. And I guess that's one more reason that I'd like women to each, individually, take a look at their own behavior, see what they're doing that might be attributable to the effects of sexism, and, to whatever extent possible, make some changes.

I should add also that I think I just have some kind of talent for meeting and befriending f*ed up people, and that my experiences are in no way intended to reflect my opinions about what the average woman is like.

ETA: Also, can I [i]say[/i] anything to these people about their learned helplessness/competitiveness? And I'm especially curious what men who consider themselves feminists do when they find themselves face to face with "helpless woman."

[quote]I think awareness is key here. Teachers being aware of possible bias towards girls in the classroom are probably more likely to make an effort to be neutral.[/quote]

Excellent example of a positive step that should be taken that I did not think of. Now if only we could get those "OMG, we're losing our boys in the classroom because we're favoring girls!!!" people to STFU.

[JGP]

[quote name='Lyanna Stark' post='1738359' date='Mar 30 2009, 07.23']Yes, but the men are not doing so by trying to become what they are not, or by only blocking people of their own gender. You don't see women exploiting this sort of behaviour to compete with men, you only see it when competing with other women.[/quote]

This isn't necesarily true Cerys, as I see this behavior in men quite often. It's an offshoot of status-anxiety, imo, but I don't think it's as calculated as you appear to, in women [i]or[/i] men.

[Multaniette]

Lyanna,

Would you happen to have a link to the Swedish film project? It sounds very interesting.

[Chaldanya]

[i]And I guess that's one more reason that I'd like women to each, individually, take a look at their own behavior, see what they're doing that might be attributable to the effects of sexism, and, to whatever extent possible, make some changes. [/i]

This I think is the first step for every woman. Look at yourself and your actions and if they are sexist and what you can do to change that.

I was very lucky, about 7 years ago I came to a message board and met some of the best women in my life and as a consequence I've learnt more about sexism and how I can be sexist. I've also learned how to have healthy relationships with women in my life; ones that are not based on helplessness or competitiveness. I hope I'm a better person for it.

N

[Lyanna Stark]

[quote name='Big Fat Panda' post='1738371' date='Mar 30 2009, 14.43']This isn't necesarily true Cerys, as I see this behavior in men quite often. It's an offshoot of status-anxiety, imo, but I don't think it's as calculated as you appear to, in women [i]or[/i] men.[/quote]


I disagree strongly, and I think a huge majority of women will know exactly what I mean. As for "not calculated", I'm not sure how you mean. That it is subconscious?

Raidne:

[quote]ETA: Also, can I say anything to these people about their learned helplessness/competitiveness? And I'm especially curious what men who consider themselves feminists do when they find themselves face to face with "helpless woman."[/quote]

Very good question. I think a majority of men just don't see it. I mean, you all know what it is like. You go somewhere with a bunch of friends and this one girl/woman just completely blocks you out by putting her hand on your boyfriend's arm, or sitting down on the couch between you, or by talking about a subject you can't take part in, to mention a few. I tend to just roll my eyes and walk away in disgust, since if I leave the scene, the object of competition (i.e. me) refuses to take part in that type of game. But maybe I should have warned my male friend/boyfriend/male person I was just talking to. Or should I have told the other woman what I thought she was doing?

I honestly have no idea how to do any of that. And it has actually ended up with some of my dates being slightly bemused at me ignoring them an entire party, which from my POV was because another woman decided to get competitive about his attention and I don't do stupid competition.

How to teach other women, in a nice way, that they are trying to blow out the other woman's candle? How to make men aware?

Looking at some of the posts made by men here, they are not even aware it exists.


Multaniette,

It took place a couple of years ago. I can give it a go, but I have no real idea where to look any more, having moved from Sweden and everything, with all my old books and references stuck in my gran's basement. :)

[Guest Raidne]

[quote name='Lyanna Stark' post='1738390' date='Mar 30 2009, 09.55']Very good question. I think a majority of men just don't see it. I mean, you all know what it is like. You go somewhere with a bunch of friends and this one girl/woman just completely blocks you out by putting her hand on your boyfriend's arm, or sitting down on the couch between you, or by talking about a subject you can't take part in, to mention a few. I tend to just roll my eyes and walk away in disgust, since if I leave the scene, the object of competition (i.e. me) refuses to take part in that type of game. But maybe I should have warned my male friend/boyfriend/male person I was just talking to. Or should I have told the other woman what I thought she was doing?[/quote]

Now [i]that[/i] is a situation that I actually [i]do[/i] know how to handle. You go the totally magnanimous route. Start a conversation with the woman, ideally about something the guy can also participate in. The guy has no idea what's really going on, most of the time, but generally [i]does[/i], IMO, feel a little awkward that all of sudden everyone's not part of the same conversation and will respond. Hopefully, she'll also switch her mindset and respond. Really, she doesn't have much of choice without seeming really rude for shutting out your totally appropriate stab at inclusive conversation.

Side bonus - if this happens with a guy you've just started dating, it also gets the message across that you're [i]not[/i] one of those women and that you're secure in yourself.

Just don't take it too far, or, alas, you'll end up being friends with the competitive woman. ;)

[JGP]

[quote name='Lyanna Stark' post='1738390' date='Mar 30 2009, 07.55']I disagree strongly, and I think a huge majority of women will know exactly what I mean. As for "not calculated", I'm not sure how you mean. That it is subconscious?[/quote]

Oh... I think it's [i]easier[/i] to believe that women are behaving like one of the guys to get 'in' with them than to consider the possibility that some women actually share the same interests as some guys, or that some women might be encouraged to identify more with men due to a feeling of being ostracized by women [i]because[/i] they're more 'man-like' in their interests.

Now, I wouldn't say it's entirely subconscious, but I don't think it's driven by any overt purpose other than the need to belong. I should add that the previous thoughts are formulated to the over-all picture. Certainly there're [i]some[/i] cases that are just as you say, both male and female.

I've known lots of girls that are 'one of the guys' with few girl friends. None of them however, ever gave me the impression they [i]chose[/i] this, for whatever reason. I shouldn't have to say that I don't think I'm right [although maybe I should say this more often] just relating from my experience.

[Guest Raidne]

Hmmm....I think the real question we all want to know the answer to is this: when a guy tries to shut out other guys, or tries to get in a little too good with the women, is he a douchebag or a cockblocker? :P

[JGP]

[quote name='Raidne' post='1738425' date='Mar 30 2009, 08.19']Hmmm....I think the real question we all want to know the answer to is this: when a guy tries to shut out other guys, or tries to get in a little too good with the women, is he a douchebag or a cockblocker? :P[/quote]

None. Both. More. Such judgments are dependant upon the security level of the man/men he's... Whatever it's perceived he's intentionally or unintentionally doing. :P

[Exa Inova]

[quote name='Raidne' post='1738425' date='Mar 30 2009, 16.19']Hmmm....I think the real question we all want to know the answer to is this: when a guy tries to shut out other guys, or tries to get in a little too good with the women, is he a douchebag or a cockblocker? :P[/quote]
Sorry, 10 pages is too much for me to join in a meaningful discussion. But I can answer this one for myself.

If I would act as you discribe, I would be cockblocking. There's no reward in being a douchebag. :smileysex:

[Lyanna Stark]

Raidne:

Yes, I have employed various strategies like that as well, but it also leaves me with the question "How can I tell her what she is actually doing?" Is it possible to make women see that they are competing with other women for male attention and that the type of behaviour is stupid and based on a sexist mindset?

I feel this is where I cannot think of anything. As I am rather independent, I can deal with just talking to random people an entire night at parties, it does not bother me much, but how to explain to people what is going on, and why?

I mean, clearly people like Big Fat Panda and to some degree Errant Bard claim this type of behaviour does not exist, or it is a figment of mine (of our?) imagination.

[Stego]

[quote name='Lyanna Stark' post='1738390' date='Mar 30 2009, 09.55']How to teach other women, in a nice way, that they are trying to blow out the other woman's candle? How to make men aware?

Looking at some of the posts made by men here, they are not even aware it exists.[/quote]




What's funny about this is the thought that this is a sex thing.

Men do this to each other quite a lot more than women do, in my experience. Not that women do not do it, of course.

Human beings are constantly striving to forward themselves at the expense of their fellows. This is one of the many flaws of our species, and extends even to the western way of life in capitalism. Social hierarchy exists, whether we choose to accept it or not. One simply has to recall junior high, after all.

In assigning levels of guilt, one honestly must assess whether it is conscious action or instinctual.

One of my personal flaws, for instance, is invariably deciding whether a man is a threat to me upon meeting him. I know that the likelihood of our battling to the death is almost nill, but the instinctual tug to make such a judgment is constant. And such decisions go a long way towards where I initially place them in the social order.

Now, I'm well aware, consciously, that this is no way to judge the worth of a human being. And certainly other factors play a strong role in the decision making process. Intelligence, merit of their work, humor, physical looks, etc. all play a role in how we place other humans in a subconscious order.

And herein lies the most basic cause of the sexism of man towards woman, in my opinion. Women simply fail to place anywhere on the threat table. Men are inundated socially from an early age to judge other men on their ability, at the basest level, to kill the person judging with their bare hands. We may wish to deny this reality, but it exists, much to our shame.

Instinctually, women do not score, or at very least score high, on this test. As such, there is a subconscious 'glass ceiling' that all (most?) men must work around to avoid any type of sexism. And sometimes it's hard.