Why do women do it to each other?

ItsCasey

You're describing teenagers, not "women." Teenagers hang out with people they don't like because making fun of others makes them feel better about themselves. Grown women don't do such things.

Now, women in general tend to be highly critical of each other, similar to how men tend to be highly competitive with each other. Everyone wants to feel like they are "better" than the person next to them, and pinpointing that person's flaws (even silently) is one way to convince yourself that you are better.

thekyleo

Most of the youth today is a lost cause

Mlkmaid

Girls that age are just mean. And I suspect the skinny one isn't as pretty as the heavier girl so maybe there's some sabotaging going on(?)

skinnyinnotime

I'm not a *****y person unless I'm being *****ed at then I'll give them more than they ever expected.

But, yeah, it always catches me by surprise when I overhear this stuff. It's down to not being happy with themselves and therefore thinking laughing at others will make them feel better...obviously doesn't work!

MeanSophieCat

It is not just teenagers. I have this problem with most adult women. Not friends I choose but coworkers or wives/girlfriends of my husband's friends. I just had a lady at a coffee shop be nasty to me. I am working and she (I can hear her loudly and proudly declaring) is a SAHM. When I dropped my pen, she felt the need to stop her conversation with her friends and snidely say, "You're losing it lady." to me. Maybe she felt the need to be funny in front of her friends or is insecure about her own lack of employement outside the home. I find the people who are most confident tend to also be some of the kindest. When you are happy with yourself, you want everyone else to feel that way too.

ahviendha

I would have said something to the girls.

I do notice all the hate and judgement in my life, which is why I go out of my way to build people up. I work with a lot of different people, with all kinds of stress, and I like to think I notice when someone is not doing well. I take the time to talk with them, show I understand or am trying to, and let them know I am always available when they need me.

I also hand out a lot of chamomile tea.

I should be a therapist. I love making people feel better.

boboff

Some women are mean, some men are ignorant.

Children often have allot to learn and can be forgiven, but there behaviors are learnt, often from parents.

It's great being an adult you can choose your friends, you work hard you become the boss you can choose your staff!

Nasty, negative, moaning people I don't need in my life, so I make a choice not to have them in my life, this girl will learn that lesson.

From my perspective also, with a 12 year old daughter, kids are much nicer, and nastier to each other nowadays, Bullying however is very much frowned upon. The days of Blackberry BBM means your nemesis follows you home!

xXxHBICxXx

Were jealous, *****y, catty and rude to other women more than we should be & this is why men think its ok to put us down because we do it to each other all the time. I don't hang out with any females outside of family because of the drama, I get along better with men and have since I was 14 until now, they just aren't as catty as we are (In most cases lol)

Maddalen101

Sometimes adults have to step in and teach the teens manners.
I would have told the mean girl to be quiet and had the heavier girl come stand by me.
Then again, I am mouthy

LiftAllThePizzas

Scientist says: the male is dominant. It is his pride. The females all mate with the dominant male and do all the work so he can protect his pride.

But it could just as easily be: female lions work cooperatively in a pride. They hunt together and raise their young. The males are so aggressively anti-social and such terrible hunters that the females will only tolerate the presence of one male in the pride, which they use for mating purposes.

See my point?

Yep, I see your point. You have to take some sort of perspective from which to describe/define things. I don't think there is any particular reason to center a pride around a male lion. But I think that is just a bad example and I know exactly the type of 'perspective malfunction' you're talking about.

LiftAllThePizzas

Let me make sure that I follow though - you went from "Homos are silly coz they're not propagating their genes" to "It's so sad that people are making value judgments?" It really sounds a lot like "Boy, I hate that people are calling me out on my stupid sexist horse****."

How did you get "Homos are silly coz they're not propagating their genes" out of anything I said? Someone else claimed that Turing failed to fulfill his "mandate" or whatever. You totally failed to understand the point I was making: direct propagation of genes is NOT a "goal." I was pointing out how homosexuality is a successful strategy, as counterintuitive as it might seem to people who fail to properly understand biological evolution from the correct gene-centric perspective. (Not that whether or not a strategy is 'successful' is any reason to judge it as moral or immoral, since everyone wants to live by the naturalistic fallacy too.)

But that's what I was talking about. People are so obsessed with trying to blame someone in this thread for any sexism they see in the world, or the way Turing was treated, and seeking out any statement that can be interpreted as congruent with such bad treatment so you can then label someone here as sexist or whatever. You were so busy with that, that you never even figured out what my position was.

I'm not really that interested (in this conversation) whether or not the world is fair. I already know how the world is. I'm interested in why individuals and societies are the way they are. I know that both nature and nurture play a role, but it seems a lot of people in this thread think it's 100% nurture and 0% nature and that is what I was trying to address.

CorvusCorax77

This conversation took a turn that was, to me, surprisingly self reflective.

When we discuss evolutionary biology and genetic reasons for human behavior, I think it is a mistake to reduce us to passing down genes. That book on NHoR relies a lot on the behavior of insects. Yes, insects may be great in terms if getting an idea how genetics play a role in the need to pass on genes, but primates and especially humans are, while still animals, extremely different than other species.

For example, empathy and social connections are just as much a requisite to ensuring the passing on of our genes as ensuring impregnation is. The need for parents, both mother and father, to identify and recognize and assist in caring for their young has been established among primates and is why infants and children physically resemble more one parent or the other in different times in development.

I saw this video of a primate who was carrying around her dead baby for months- even as it rotted. She couldn't accept that it was dead and was not rebreeding. To me, this is evidence that our genetic drive for social connections, community, empathy, and companionship are just as strong (if not stronger) than our desire to reproduce. What I'm saying is: any book that argues that men are naturally inclined to rape as a matter of evolutionary biology is selecting only those elements of evolutionary biology that supports their theory. It *is* sexist bullsh!t. That doesn't mean that some men are compelled to rape- of course some are- but I think that has a lot more to do with them having a specific mental illness rather than it being a genetic inevitability that all men walk around with.

Also, I would like to point out that I am the one here arguing that men are not all rapists. Sexism pisses me off no matter if it is against men or women. The fact that I have a vagina and I speak out about sexism doesn't mean that I only care about how sexism negatively affects women. I care about the entire human race, and animals too.

LiftAllThePizzas

This conversation took a turn that was, to me, surprisingly self reflective.

When we discuss evolutionary biology and genetic reasons for human behavior, I think it is a mistake to reduce us to passing down genes. That book on NHoR relies a lot on the behavior of insects. Yes, insects may be great in terms if getting an idea how genetics play a role in the need to pass on genes, but primates and especially humans are, while still animals, extremely different than other species.

For example, empathy and social connections are just as much a requisite to ensuring the passing on of our genes as ensuring impregnation is. The need for parents, both mother and father, to identify and recognize and assist in caring for their young has been established among primates and is why infants and children physically resemble more one parent or the other in different times in development.

Humans do not pass down their genes. Genes build human bodies as a (very complex and roundabout) way for those genes to replicate themselves. You and I are copy machines. That is why empathy, social connections, altruism, love, etc exist: they allow genes in body A to cooperate with another copy of the same gene in body B. Genes which build bodies who cooperate with other bodies carrying those same genes are more successful at replicating. Those feelings are what drive us to cooperate.

A hypothetical example often given is a gene which produces green hair and a strong desire to cooperate with anyone who has green hair way more than anyone who doesn't. Such a gene would have a huge advantage in a population and thus would push out competing alleles.

That is similar to why we are programmed to behave more altruistically toward our nuclear family. The more closely someone is related, the more of your genes they share, the more they look like you, the more advantageous it is (for the genes) to cooperate. Since we don't have the ability to genotype each other that is the closest 'solution' to the problem of how to know whom to cooperate with to what degree in order to outcompete alternate alleles. Genes that cooperate equally with everyone regardless, would not stand a chance against "selfish" genes that favor themselves. This is why in-group-ism and tribalism exist and turn into racism in larger societies. (Again, it doesn't mean it's a good thing.)

I think it's necessary to qualify, especially in this thread's atmosphere... while that explains our predispositions for certain behavior patterns, it does not mean that humans are automatons who have to or should mindlessly follow pre-programmed behavior. We are incredibly fortunate to have the capability of self-awareness and to take thinking to a different level and override much of that programming. (That is why racism and sexism and homophobia and other forms of systematically treating people crappily are morally repugnant.)

CorvusCorax77

This conversation took a turn that was, to me, surprisingly self reflective.

When we discuss evolutionary biology and genetic reasons for human behavior, I think it is a mistake to reduce us to passing down genes. That book on NHoR relies a lot on the behavior of insects. Yes, insects may be great in terms if getting an idea how genetics play a role in the need to pass on genes, but primates and especially humans are, while still animals, extremely different than other species.

For example, empathy and social connections are just as much a requisite to ensuring the passing on of our genes as ensuring impregnation is. The need for parents, both mother and father, to identify and recognize and assist in caring for their young has been established among primates and is why infants and children physically resemble more one parent or the other in different times in development.

Humans do not pass down their genes. Genes build human bodies as a (very complex and roundabout) way for those genes to replicate themselves. You and I are copy machines. That is why empathy, social connections, altruism, love, etc exist: they allow genes in body A to cooperate with another copy of the same gene in body B. Genes which build bodies who cooperate with other bodies carrying those same genes are more successful at replicating. Those feelings are what drive us to cooperate.

A hypothetical example often given is a gene which produces green hair and a strong desire to cooperate with anyone who has green hair way more than anyone who doesn't. Such a gene would have a huge advantage in a population and thus would push out competing alleles.

That is similar to why we are programmed to behave more altruistically toward our nuclear family. The more closely someone is related, the more of your genes they share, the more they look like you, the more advantageous it is (for the genes) to cooperate. Since we don't have the ability to genotype each other that is the closest 'solution' to the problem of how to know whom to cooperate with to what degree in order to outcompete alternate alleles. Genes that cooperate equally with everyone regardless, would not stand a chance against "selfish" genes that favor themselves. This is why in-group-ism and tribalism exist and turn into racism in larger societies. (Again, it doesn't mean it's a good thing.)

I think it's necessary to qualify, especially in this thread's atmosphere... while that explains our predispositions for certain behavior patterns, it does not mean that humans are automatons who have to or should mindlessly follow pre-programmed behavior. We are incredibly fortunate to have the capability of self-awareness and to take thinking to a different level and override much of that programming. (That is why racism and sexism and homophobia and other forms of systematically treating people crappily are morally repugnant.)

Yeah. We don't agree. You say genes make humans to replicate themselves and I say humans are more than that. My reason for believing so is the fact that I am conscious. I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

bostonwolf

Yesterday at the gym two older teenagers walked into the body pump class. One of the teens was over weight and the other was very thin. They started the class and the thin one was not even trying and was laughing at the other who was trying to workout. She was telling her she looked stupid and the class was a joke. The bigger teen was ignoring her and kept trying but when she lost her balance (she did not fall) the thin girl said, "told you you couldn't do it." They both left.
It broke my heart to see one trying to get fit and the other "friend" putting her down!! Why are women so mean to each other?

Quite honestly I would have intervened and said something to the skinny girl.

I've found that men can be quicker to anger and might actually fight (or scuffle during sports) but usually when the game/altercation is over and they've cooled off they will approach each other and make up and usually there are no hard feelings.

Women hold a grudge, in my experience, and they NEVER forget it.

CorvusCorax77

Also "programmed to behave more altruistically towards our nuclear families"... Things like this that you say don't compute for me. I see lots of people treat strangers well and be abusive towards their families. You place values and meaning onto things that are not the values and meanings that I attribute to them, and this is why we can not agree.

Makes me wanna quote nietszche:

"What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms -- in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.
We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors - in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all..."

jonnythan

Also "programmed to behave more altruistically towards our nuclear families"... Things like this that you say don't compute for me. I see lots of people treat strangers well and be abusive towards their families. You place values and meaning onto things that are not the values and meanings that I attribute to them, and this is why we can not agree.

Those kind of quotes make me rage.

What am I programmed to do? What if the things you think I'm "programmed" for aren't there? Am I defective? Am I less of a man? What's the implication?

LiftAllThePizzas

Also "programmed to behave more altruistically towards our nuclear families"... Things like this that you say don't compute for me. I see lots of people treat strangers well and be abusive towards their families. You place values and meaning onto things that are not the values and meanings that I attribute to them, and this is why we can not agree.

Those kind of quotes make me rage.

What am I programmed to do? What if the things you think I'm "programmed" for aren't there? Am I defective? Am I less of a man? What's the implication?

Sigh, it's like explaining evolution to someone whose only response is, "so you're saying I come from monkeys?!?!?!"

Your thoughts, behaviours, ideas, memories, etc are all a result of the "structure*" of the neural network that is your brain, which was built by genes to have a specific structure and then additionally altered by your experiences/environment. The genes which built your brain are the product of a buttload of selection. Your brain and its output (predispositions to particular behaviors and thought patterns) are ultimately a product of an evolutionary algorithm. Whether or not you can accept it, it's still true.

If you want to believe your brain is magically immune to the laws of physics that's all on you, but all evidence including the effects of drugs, traumas and other alterations of the brain shows that everything that is "you" resides inside your skull and is in fact subject to the same laws as the rest of the universe. If you also want to believe that you were born as a blank slate and are purely rational, that's your own problem in trying to explain how so much of observed reality falsifies that assertion.

Are you "defective?" Who cares? The question is a non sequitur. You're trying to infer purpose and again derive value (and ego) from that. There is no purpose. The concept of "for" (you are programmed for this or that, or your body is for copying genes) is only a metaphor for the much more lengthy and drawn out explanation of the fact that all of it is simply a consequence of past events with no forward-looking 'meaning' behind it. I exist as a result, the genes that built my body copied themselves from each one of my ancestors to the next, etc. I don't exist to fulfill a purpose (especially not some cosmic divine purpose) and neither do you or anyone else.

The point I've been trying to get at is that if you want to change or control something you first need to know how it works (and thus 'why' it is the way it is) so that you can properly manipulate it to get the desired result. Simply looking at something and judging it as being "wrong" the way it is, doesn't produce a solution. In other words, if we want to stop treating each other poorly, the first step in that is knowing what causes us to do so.

(*Sorry I'm not going to include a course on neural networks here, LOL.)

jonnythan

Also "programmed to behave more altruistically towards our nuclear families"... Things like this that you say don't compute for me. I see lots of people treat strangers well and be abusive towards their families. You place values and meaning onto things that are not the values and meanings that I attribute to them, and this is why we can not agree.

Those kind of quotes make me rage.

What am I programmed to do? What if the things you think I'm "programmed" for aren't there? Am I defective? Am I less of a man? What's the implication?

Sigh, it's like explaining evolution to someone whose only response is, "so you're saying I come from monkeys?!?!?!"

Your thoughts, behaviours, ideas, memories, etc are all a result of the "structure*" of the neural network that is your brain, which was built by genes to have a specific structure and then additionally altered by your experiences/environment. The genes which built your brain are the product of a buttload of selection. Your brain and its output (predispositions to particular behaviors and thought patterns) are ultimately a product of an evolutionary algorithm. Whether or not you can accept it, it's still true.

If you want to believe your brain is magically immune to the laws of physics that's all on you, but all evidence including the effects of drugs, traumas and other alterations of the brain shows that everything that is "you" resides inside your skull and is in fact subject to the same laws as the rest of the universe. If you also want to believe that you were born as a blank slate and are purely rational, that's your own problem in trying to explain how so much of observed reality falsifies that assertion.

Are you "defective?" Who cares? The question is a non sequitur. You're trying to infer purpose and again derive value (and ego) from that. There is no purpose. The concept of "for" (you are programmed for this or that, or your body is for copying genes) is only a metaphor for the much more lengthy and drawn out explanation of the fact that all of it is simply a consequence of past events with no forward-looking 'meaning' behind it. I exist as a result, the genes that built my body copied themselves from each one of my ancestors to the next, etc. I don't exist to fulfill a purpose (especially not some cosmic divine purpose) and neither do you or anyone else.

The point I've been trying to get at is that if you want to change or control something you first need to know how it works (and thus 'why' it is the way it is) so that you can properly manipulate it to get the desired result. Simply looking at something and judging it as being "wrong" the way it is, doesn't produce a solution. In other words, if we want to stop treating each other poorly, the first step in that is knowing what causes us to do so.

(*Sorry I'm not going to include a course on neural networks here, LOL.)

Sigh.

The claim that I was "meant" or "made" to conform to some gender construct is bunk. Full stop. There is enormous room for individual variation, and saying that someone was "meant" or "made" to have some characteristic because of their gender carries a host of expectations and implications that cause problems and stress when that particular characteristic is not displayed.

LiftAllThePizzas

Also "programmed to behave more altruistically towards our nuclear families"... Things like this that you say don't compute for me. I see lots of people treat strangers well and be abusive towards their families.

Well, you have successfully refuted the statement, "all human beings are exactly the same and are mindless automatons who are all programmed to react to every situation with identical behaviors every single time and without exception." Now if only you can find someone who made that statement, you'd be good to go.:laugh: