Why do women do it to each other?
Replies
-
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?
I spent all of 7th and 8th grades trying to figure it out. Then I gave up and started hanging out with the guys.0 -
Certainly, but in my experience at least, it's much more about talking themselves up or trying to be personally impressive and become visible to someone else. I've certainly never seen guys attack another guy just for being dressed in a 'provocative manner' and act like a complete jerk to him because of his clothing. I mean, maybe if they were the kind of alpha-male Richard who thought the guy was being too "Metro" or something, but certainly not just "Oh, he must be a bad person because he's dressed in a manner that women find attractive."Could you explain what you mean by this, specifically. You are specific about what women do. Describe the male behavior you are thinking of, if you don't mind.
Are you saying that men are assertive when competing sexually?
Which of course ties into a whole lot of other narratives about slut shaming and women supposedly not being attracted to men on a purely physical level and all kinds of other terrible sexist crap in our culture that needs to be burned away.
0 -
I can't say that I completely agree with you on this one, as it's been pretty well discussed that there's a fair bit more backbiting and ****ty, manipulative behavior that goes on among girls.i made it through the first handful of comments before I decided this thread is worthless misogynist crap.
Have a nice day.
It's certainly nothing that's inherent to women in comparison to men, imo, but has a hell of a lot more to do with culture and the way that women are told to value themselves and others. But to completely handwave anyone who points it out as being misogynist doesn't really help anything either. This sort of thing exists and has been researched. I highly recommend checking out "Queen Bees and Wannabes" by Rosalind Wiseman, for starters.
Not that guys aren't capable of being complete jerks to each other, of course, but guys are much more likely to hurt each other (especially at that age) out of thoughtlessness and stupidity rather than the sort of targeted torpedoing of someone's insecurities, especially among friends. It's unfortunate, but pretending it's not there certainly won't help anyone.
There's also been books published about how men are naturally inclined to rape. I invite you to read "A natural history or rape." It is also sexist bull**** that I refuse to give any validity to.
Have a nice day.
How very strange that you would use rape as a comparison. Woah!
So..............
You don't believe that teenage girls can be mean little you-know-whats?
Or that men don't commit rape?
Or maybe you are just being catty? IDK0 -
For those who don't think adults do that. I have lost 36lbs and while at church a couple of weeks ago I walked past one of the older church members who was sitting next to pastors wife. The older one looked me up and down and under her breath said to the pastors wife, wellll will you look at this! They both looked me up and down and as I turned to look at them quickly turned away. Jealous, caddy, I don't know. But you would think you could go to church and not have to worry about such things. But - there it is!0
-
Wait, I wasn't traumatized because I couldn't get pregnant? Man, THAT'S a relief. *wipes brow* :PI also have that history. Knowing you have that history I think you would dislike that aspect of the book also for very similar reasons as why I disagreed with it. He seemed to want to support that the depth of the trauma was only in correlation with the risk of pregnancy from the rape. Clearly, the authors do not actually understand the nature of sexual trauma (especially in children and men), and how many factors there actually are in the traumatic impact it has.
( http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/us/politics/rep-todd-akin-legitimate-rape-statement-and-reaction.html?_r=0 )0 -
You said that the statement, "men are naturally inclined to rape," is sexist bs. I'm telling you that it isn't bs and that rape sucks, but some men are naturally inclined to it, and it has no place in a civilized society. Has nothing to do with whether or not it's in a book. I don't know what correlation you are even talking about nor do I care.
Just because it's "natural" doesn't mean it's acceptable in a civilized society. You seem to be confusing those two things. It is also not true that all humans are predisposed to adopt the same strategy for cooperation, relationship types, dominant/submissive behavior, or mating strategies. Understanding that some men are naturally inclined to rape, or that we are naturally violent and racist, is the only way that we will overcome that nature and not act (so much) like a bunch of animals.There's also been books published about how men are naturally inclined to rape. I invite you to read "A natural history or rape." It is also sexist bull**** that I refuse to give any validity to.
Um. No. That is not what I am saying. I am not saying any such thing. I am presenting a book that claims to be scientific explaining behaviors that I believe is sexist hoopla, in the same way I think any book arguing it is some scientific fact that women are petty/jealous/any of the other crap people are saying here is also sexist hoopla masquerading as science. It only takes a little bit of intelligence to understand that correlation is not causation.
It has everything to do with the fact that it is a strategy used by genes to get themselves replicated, and it happens to work often enough in human societies for it to have a niche within a polymorphic population capable of supporting multiple evolutionarily stable strategies. Trying to apply "causation" to the results of evolutionary algorithms is rather pointless anyway. About as pointless as trying to apply value judgements to the results.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Someone can tell a difference between these two statements:
(1) Men are naturally inclined to rape.
And,
(2) Some men are naturally inclined to rape.
Thank you for playing the game called "Practicing Those Critical Thinking Skills!"0 -
Okay, I'm pretty sure that, in social sciences, the use of the word 'aggression' describes a person being hurtful or harmful to another. It doesn't mean the person is being assertive and is a go-getter and tries hard. It means the person is acting mean.
That is where we are diverging.0 -
LOL. Actually it was my inability to correctly infer whether your ambiguous statement "men" was intended as "some men" or "all men" so I'll take the bonus points and apply them to my initial deficit, thanks.
You said that the statement, "men are naturally inclined to rape," is sexist bs. I'm telling you that it isn't bs and that rape sucks, but some men are naturally inclined to it, and it has no place in a civilized society. Has nothing to do with whether or not it's in a book. I don't know what correlation you are even talking about nor do I care.
Just because it's "natural" doesn't mean it's acceptable in a civilized society. You seem to be confusing those two things. It is also not true that all humans are predisposed to adopt the same strategy for cooperation, relationship types, dominant/submissive behavior, or mating strategies. Understanding that some men are naturally inclined to rape, or that we are naturally violent and racist, is the only way that we will overcome that nature and not act (so much) like a bunch of animals.There's also been books published about how men are naturally inclined to rape. I invite you to read "A natural history or rape." It is also sexist bull**** that I refuse to give any validity to.
Um. No. That is not what I am saying. I am not saying any such thing. I am presenting a book that claims to be scientific explaining behaviors that I believe is sexist hoopla, in the same way I think any book arguing it is some scientific fact that women are petty/jealous/any of the other crap people are saying here is also sexist hoopla masquerading as science. It only takes a little bit of intelligence to understand that correlation is not causation.
It has everything to do with the fact that it is a strategy used by genes to get themselves replicated, and it happens to work often enough in human societies for it to have a niche within a polymorphic population capable of supporting multiple evolutionarily stable strategies. Trying to apply "causation" to the results of evolutionary algorithms is rather pointless anyway. About as pointless as trying to apply value judgements to the results.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Someone can tell a difference between these two statements:
(1) Men are naturally inclined to rape.
And,
(2) Some men are naturally inclined to rape.
Thank you for playing the game called "Practicing Those Critical Thinking Skills!"
(I was also addressing the common sentiment that you didn't state but which often accompanies those discussions, that onhoez if we accept that some behaviors (rape, racism, violence, etc) are "natural" then we can't condemn them as bad, which is also total bs.)
If any book says all men are, then yeah I agree that book is crap and the author needs to be slapped upside the head.
What was the topic again?:laugh:0 -
LOL. Actually it was my inability to correctly infer whether your ambiguous statement "men" was intended as "some men" or "all men" so I'll take the bonus points and apply them to my initial deficit, thanks.
You said that the statement, "men are naturally inclined to rape," is sexist bs. I'm telling you that it isn't bs and that rape sucks, but some men are naturally inclined to it, and it has no place in a civilized society. Has nothing to do with whether or not it's in a book. I don't know what correlation you are even talking about nor do I care.
Just because it's "natural" doesn't mean it's acceptable in a civilized society. You seem to be confusing those two things. It is also not true that all humans are predisposed to adopt the same strategy for cooperation, relationship types, dominant/submissive behavior, or mating strategies. Understanding that some men are naturally inclined to rape, or that we are naturally violent and racist, is the only way that we will overcome that nature and not act (so much) like a bunch of animals.There's also been books published about how men are naturally inclined to rape. I invite you to read "A natural history or rape." It is also sexist bull**** that I refuse to give any validity to.
Um. No. That is not what I am saying. I am not saying any such thing. I am presenting a book that claims to be scientific explaining behaviors that I believe is sexist hoopla, in the same way I think any book arguing it is some scientific fact that women are petty/jealous/any of the other crap people are saying here is also sexist hoopla masquerading as science. It only takes a little bit of intelligence to understand that correlation is not causation.
It has everything to do with the fact that it is a strategy used by genes to get themselves replicated, and it happens to work often enough in human societies for it to have a niche within a polymorphic population capable of supporting multiple evolutionarily stable strategies. Trying to apply "causation" to the results of evolutionary algorithms is rather pointless anyway. About as pointless as trying to apply value judgements to the results.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Someone can tell a difference between these two statements:
(1) Men are naturally inclined to rape.
And,
(2) Some men are naturally inclined to rape.
Thank you for playing the game called "Practicing Those Critical Thinking Skills!" (I was also addressing the common sentiment that you didn't state but which often accompanies those discussions, that onhoez if we accept that some behaviors (rape, racism, violence, etc) are "natural" then we can't condemn them as bad, which is also total bs.)
If any book says all men are, then yeah I agree that book is crap and the author needs to be slapped upside the head.
What was the topic again?:laugh:
The book she was talking about does not say all men are rapists. The authors are actually scientists and approach it from a scientific perspective, similar to what you were describing. Of course the final conclusion is not definitive (and I disagreed with their analysis of rating rape in their perception of trauma it causes), but it is informative about a direction to go in and continuing to try and understand some of the root causes of rape and violence and how to prevent it as much as possible. The book, "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" by Steven Pinker goes more into depth on that topic as well as many other topics (some of the topics you are bringing up). No one needs to agree 100% with any of these books, but they are bringing very important discussions to the table that should be looked at, explored and understood, and it is controversial as it does go against some of the common understanding of rape. The common understanding was that it is only about power. It is about power, but they are saying it is also about sex, for the rapist. And the book discusses it from an evolutionary perspective. They also explain that rapists that are sociopaths are a different study because they have other issues involved in why they rape and are violent and do not feel empathy and how and why that occurs. The root causes of sociopathy are not fully understood. It appears to be a genetic issue that gets turned on by the environment (both issues need to be present), it can also be a problem in the brain (that they find during autopsy). Anyway, this is a whole other discussion.0 -
Xx0
-
Harhar. they are "scientists" and so we should believe them with no critical thinkin of our own? I am a scientist too! That's part of what makes this so damned laughable. The "biologist" is an entomologist (he studies insects) and the "anthropologist" studies focused on fishermen traits, the Spanish flu, and Eco-tourism. Clearly, they are professionals who should be speaking on the complex nature of human behavior. I have a dear friend who is also an anthropologist, teaching at a university, and he thinks that book is utter rubbish.0
-
Teenage girls are just horrible creatures! When my daughter was that age, she too was horrible. But thank God she grew out of it. When dealing with a teenage girl, you soon realize you know the reason why some animals eat their young!0
-
Harhar. they are "scientists" and so we should believe them with no critical thinkin of our own? I am a scientist too! That's part of what makes this so damned laughable. The "biologist" is an entomologist (he studies insects) and the "anthropologist" studies focused on fishermen traits, the Spanish flu, and Eco-tourism. Clearly, they are professionals who should be speaking on the complex nature of human behavior. I have a dear friend who is also an anthropologist, teaching at a university, and he thinks that book is utter rubbish.
I understand and I agree that we should not just take their word on it because they are scientists, and that was not my intention in what I said. I did not read the full book and I even stated clearly a number of times that I disagreed with them on a lot of it and did not expect anyone to agree with them. But, I do think they had good intentions in attempting to do the research (even if they were wrong), and I didn't perceive it to have a definitive outcome (as I said). I don't think they were just being sexist. I read the other book I had mentioned, and so most of my thoughts on it come from that book. I do like Steven Pinker and his other books (but again I do not agree with him 100% on anything, either, as I said, and that would be impossible on subject matters like this that are too subjective by their very nature). But, I am actually not defending that particular book because I did not read the whole book, and I also disliked it. I was only saying that I do think it is an important area of research to be open to. And I understood it better when I read Steven Pinker's book (at the time that I read it).
I mean honestly when the book first came out, I wrote such a critical review of it, that the authors actually e-mailed me to talk about it with me.0 -
Your title says women but you are talking about teenaged children. does not compute.
Women aren't necessarily mean to each other. But teenagers are all ***holes.0 -
Like planetary motion, human behavior is actually pretty easy to understand once you look at it from the right perspective. Those being gravity and a gene-centric view of life. It's not sexist to expect males and females to adopt different reproductive strategies, because the ways that males and females copy their genes, the investments in time, energy, body, are very different. You will find big male/female differences in strategies in any sexually-reproducing species. If someone were to show that there was no difference in pre-wired male/female human reproductive strategies, IMO it would be the biggest scandal in the history of biology, on the level of finding a precambrian crocoduck fossil.Harhar. they are "scientists" and so we should believe them with no critical thinkin of our own? I am a scientist too! That's part of what makes this so damned laughable. The "biologist" is an entomologist (he studies insects) and the "anthropologist" studies focused on fishermen traits, the Spanish flu, and Eco-tourism. Clearly, they are professionals who should be speaking on the complex nature of human behavior. I have a dear friend who is also an anthropologist, teaching at a university, and he thinks that book is utter rubbish.0 -
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?
Well I could be wrong but I am thinking she (the thin one), may be deep down does not want her friend to loose weight because right now she gets most of the positive attention from other's but if her friend looses weight they may get equal positive attention and it could even take the focus off of her. Also may be it makes her feel better about herself with an over weight friend to hang around with. Which is sad. To me a true friend would support her friend and help her to reach her goals. Any way that's all I can think why she would be that way. May be she does not even herself realize why she is being negetive to this other girl. Just a thought...0 -
No that is not what I am saying. But apparently you don't understand what sexism is, and how both books are good examples of it.
A lot of times things said by males regarding women are labeled as being "sexist" even if they are true. For example, if I said "women were made to be the nurturers in a parenting situation and men are meant to be the teachers" some women would perceive that as sexist because they believe that women can do anything that a man can do even though studies show that women are better at nurturing and caring for children and men are better at stimulating children intellectually. This is also corroborated by the psychological action of sex hormones and left/right brain communication. The fact of the matter is that there ARE certain behaviors that are associated with both genders and to pretend that there aren't is blatantly ignorant. We are animals, these behaviors are imprinted on our genomes just like they are with any other species. People just like to pretend that everyone is the same and equal but; in reality, we are not.0 -
A lot of times things said by males regarding women are labeled as being "sexist" even if they are true. For example, if I said "women were made to be the nurturers in a parenting situation and men are meant to be the teachers" some women would perceive that as sexist because
Let me stop you right there. It would be perceived as sexist because it is sexist. Women't weren't "made" to be anything.
Sexism is defined as the attribution of certain characteristics, expectations, or assumptions to an individual based on their gender. The problem with your statement is that it pushes the assumption that a woman is nurturing because she is a woman. The other side of that coin is that a woman who is not nurturing is not a proper woman.
This is the problem with sexism. It assigns characteristics and expectations to people based on their gender and nothing else. It's inherently unfair. Yes, in general, women might be more nurturing, but that doesn't apply to individual women and doesn't mean that women were "meant" or "made" to be that way.0 -
I want to say something more than "Me too," but yeah, this is pretty spot on. It's amazing how many people think something is sexist just because it obviously is.A lot of times things said by males regarding women are labeled as being "sexist" even if they are true. For example, if I said "women were made to be the nurturers in a parenting situation and men are meant to be the teachers" some women would perceive that as sexist because
Let me stop you right there. It would be perceived as sexist because it is sexist. Women't weren't "made" to be anything.
Sexism is defined as the attribution of certain characteristics, expectations, or assumptions to an individual based on their gender. The problem with your statement is that it pushes the assumption that a women is nurturing because she is a woman. The other side of that coin is that a woman who is not nurturing is not a proper woman.
This is the problem with sexism. It assigns characteristics and expectations to people based on their gender and nothing else. It's inherently unfair. Yes, in general, women might be more nurturing, but that doesn't apply to individual women and doesn't mean that women were "meant" or "made" to be that way.0 -
A lot of times things said by males regarding women are labeled as being "sexist" even if they are true. For example, if I said "women were made to be the nurturers in a parenting situation and men are meant to be the teachers" some women would perceive that as sexist because
Let me stop you right there. It would be perceived as sexist because it is sexist. Women't weren't "made" to be anything.
Sexism is defined as the attribution of certain characteristics, expectations, or assumptions to an individual based on their gender. The problem with your statement is that it pushes the assumption that a woman is nurturing because she is a woman. The other side of that coin is that a woman who is not nurturing is not a proper woman.
This is the problem with sexism. It assigns characteristics and expectations to people based on their gender and nothing else. It's inherently unfair. Yes, in general, women might be more nurturing, but that doesn't apply to individual women and doesn't mean that women were "meant" or "made" to be that way.
Weather or not people were made is a difference in belief systems that goes beyond the scope of this argument. You are splitting hairs. Men and women are "better" or "more fit" to carry out certain behaviors than one another. Does that satisfy your ego? or would you like to play more word games?0 -
I work in a male dominated field and don't see this very often. Many of the women in my field are cool. But there are some who do try to tear the competition down. I usually just get along with everyone, but one lady explained that part of the reason she didn't like another person was that they were both queen bees competing for dominance.
I don't know -- seems pretty unnecessary. We all bring something unique and wonderful to the table.0 -
i read the first few posts and noticed the thread went a bit off topic so thought i'd just post
People can be cruel and deter their friends from trying to workout, but how come no one spoke up about it? I guess i am just lucky enough to go to a gym where i have done classes and been shagged and have had nothing but motivation and support from random people i don't know telling me i can do it and i can keep going just don't give up.
Annoys me a little that people see this going on in all aspects of life but no one ever stands up for them or tells their other person to shut up
/end rant0 -
A lot of times things said by males regarding women are labeled as being "sexist" even if they are true. For example, if I said "women were made to be the nurturers in a parenting situation and men are meant to be the teachers" some women would perceive that as sexist because
Let me stop you right there. It would be perceived as sexist because it is sexist. Women't weren't "made" to be anything.
Sexism is defined as the attribution of certain characteristics, expectations, or assumptions to an individual based on their gender. The problem with your statement is that it pushes the assumption that a woman is nurturing because she is a woman. The other side of that coin is that a woman who is not nurturing is not a proper woman.
This is the problem with sexism. It assigns characteristics and expectations to people based on their gender and nothing else. It's inherently unfair. Yes, in general, women might be more nurturing, but that doesn't apply to individual women and doesn't mean that women were "meant" or "made" to be that way.
I noticed a pattern with you. Regardless of what the subject matter, you seem to "know" more than anyone else in the thread. What exactly is your education in? You know so much about science that you surely must be a doctor of some sort. Me? I'm just a measly neurophysiologist. What do I know about the human brain right?0 -
Weather or not people were made is a difference in belief systems that goes beyond the scope of this argument. You are splitting hairs. Men and women are "better" or "more fit" to carry out certain behaviors than one another. Does that satisfy your ego? or would you like to play more word games?
But men and women aren't "more fit" to carry out certain behaviors. Individual people are more fit to carry out certain behaviors. Liz Carmouche is far more fit to kick the crap out of someone than I am.
These aren't word games. These are serious issues in society. Attitudes like this - that women are "meant" or "more fit" to do womanly things - are the reason that people give Danica Patrick such ****. It's the reason that women are held to higher standards in business environments and health care. It's the reason people feel comfortable openly wondering why some actress isn't having a baby. Thinking that men are "meant" or "more fit" to be strong or macho is the reason so many gay teens kill themselves.
These expectations, which fall in all kinds of directions, are placed on people simply because of their gender. They cause real, genuine problems for individuals who don't conform to those expectations. It's really a big problem, and it's not a subtle distinction.0 -
A lot of times things said by males regarding women are labeled as being "sexist" even if they are true. For example, if I said "women were made to be the nurturers in a parenting situation and men are meant to be the teachers" some women would perceive that as sexist because
Let me stop you right there. It would be perceived as sexist because it is sexist. Women't weren't "made" to be anything.
Sexism is defined as the attribution of certain characteristics, expectations, or assumptions to an individual based on their gender. The problem with your statement is that it pushes the assumption that a woman is nurturing because she is a woman. The other side of that coin is that a woman who is not nurturing is not a proper woman.
This is the problem with sexism. It assigns characteristics and expectations to people based on their gender and nothing else. It's inherently unfair. Yes, in general, women might be more nurturing, but that doesn't apply to individual women and doesn't mean that women were "meant" or "made" to be that way.
I noticed a pattern with you. Regardless of what the subject matter, you seem to "know" more than anyone else in the thread. What exactly is your education in? You know so much about science that you surely must be a doctor of some sort. Me? I'm just a measly neurophysiologist. What do I know about the human brain right?
I know what I know and I see what I see. If I don't know something about a topic, I leave my mouth shut. If you want to argue my knowledge, do so. Let's not start trying to attack each other's arguments based on credentials. Attack the arguments themselves.0 -
Good lord, I doubt this is what the OP intended.
To the OP: I don't know why people would treat their friends like that, but I have had my fair share of friends like the thin girl and they can destroy you mentally. However, someone pointing it out in front of everyone can make the bullied party more embarrassed and the bully angry at being called out and take it out on the bullied party more in the future. Or it's happened to me before: a mean "friend" got in trouble from a teacher for making fun of me and she saw it as me getting her in trouble even though the teacher just overheard and I never said anything.
So to everyone who asked why no one said something; if I was there I wouldn't have. But, afterwords I would have tried to find the girl who was bullied when she wasn't with the other, and said something comforting.
I don't know if anyone still reading this is even interested in the original subject though or if you're all in this battle of the sexes thing going on :P0 -
Weather or not people were made is a difference in belief systems that goes beyond the scope of this argument. You are splitting hairs. Men and women are "better" or "more fit" to carry out certain behaviors than one another. Does that satisfy your ego? or would you like to play more word games?
But men and women aren't "more fit" to carry out certain behaviors. Individual people are more fit to carry out certain behaviors. Liz Carmouche is far more fit to kick the crap out of someone than I am.
These aren't word games. These are serious issues in society. Attitudes like this - that womeny are "meant" or "more fit" to do womanly things - are the reason that people give Danica Patrick such ****. It's the reason that women are held to higher standards in business environments and health care. It's the reason people feel comfortable openly wondering why some actress isn't having a baby. Thinking that men are "meant" or "more fit" to be strong or macho is the reason so many gay teens kill themselves.
These expectations, which fall in all kinds of directions, are placed on people simply because of their gender. They cause real, genuine problems for individuals who don't conform to those expectations. It's really a big problem, and it's not a subtle distinction.
I don't know how to explain this to you. No, we are not. These behaviors transcend nationality and culture for a reason. That reason is that they are genetically imprinted upon us and cannot wholly be escaped. Do they need to be as extreme as they are in america? Probably not but they will ALWAYS be there. We are different on a ll levels neurologically, cellular, histological, physiological and anatomical. There is literally no way around it.0 -
Weather or not people were made is a difference in belief systems that goes beyond the scope of this argument. You are splitting hairs. Men and women are "better" or "more fit" to carry out certain behaviors than one another. Does that satisfy your ego? or would you like to play more word games?
But men and women aren't "more fit" to carry out certain behaviors. Individual people are more fit to carry out certain behaviors. Liz Carmouche is far more fit to kick the crap out of someone than I am.
These aren't word games. These are serious issues in society. Attitudes like this - that womeny are "meant" or "more fit" to do womanly things - are the reason that people give Danica Patrick such ****. It's the reason that women are held to higher standards in business environments and health care. It's the reason people feel comfortable openly wondering why some actress isn't having a baby. Thinking that men are "meant" or "more fit" to be strong or macho is the reason so many gay teens kill themselves.
These expectations, which fall in all kinds of directions, are placed on people simply because of their gender. They cause real, genuine problems for individuals who don't conform to those expectations. It's really a big problem, and it's not a subtle distinction.
I don't know how to explain this to you. No, we are not. These behaviors transcend nationality and culture for a reason. That reason is that they are genetically imprinted upon us and cannot wholly be escaped. Do they need to be as extreme as they are in america? Probably not but they will ALWAYS be there. We are different on a ll levels neurologically, cellular, histological, physiological and anatomical. There is literally no way around it.
That's the point - we are all different. Expecting an individual to have certain characteristics because of their gender is inherently unfair, because we are all different. There are plenty of women who have no interest in being nurturing or having babies. There are plenty of men who have no interest in being strong or talking about T&A or whatever.
We need to look at people on an individual basis and stop making assumptions about what they're like based on their gender and skin color.0 -
Weather or not people were made is a difference in belief systems that goes beyond the scope of this argument. You are splitting hairs. Men and women are "better" or "more fit" to carry out certain behaviors than one another. Does that satisfy your ego? or would you like to play more word games?
But men and women aren't "more fit" to carry out certain behaviors. Individual people are more fit to carry out certain behaviors. Liz Carmouche is far more fit to kick the crap out of someone than I am.
These aren't word games. These are serious issues in society. Attitudes like this - that womeny are "meant" or "more fit" to do womanly things - are the reason that people give Danica Patrick such ****. It's the reason that women are held to higher standards in business environments and health care. It's the reason people feel comfortable openly wondering why some actress isn't having a baby. Thinking that men are "meant" or "more fit" to be strong or macho is the reason so many gay teens kill themselves.
These expectations, which fall in all kinds of directions, are placed on people simply because of their gender. They cause real, genuine problems for individuals who don't conform to those expectations. It's really a big problem, and it's not a subtle distinction.
I don't know how to explain this to you. No, we are not. These behaviors transcend nationality and culture for a reason. That reason is that they are genetically imprinted upon us and cannot wholly be escaped. Do they need to be as extreme as they are in america? Probably not but they will ALWAYS be there. We are different on a ll levels neurologically, cellular, histological, physiological and anatomical. There is literally no way around it.
That's the point - we are all different. Expecting an individual to have certain characteristics because of their gender is inherently unfair, because we are all different. There are plenty of women who have no interest in being nurturing or having babies. There are plenty of men who have no interest in being strong or talking about T&A or whatever.
We need to look at people on an individual basis and stop making assumptions about what they're like based on their gender and skin color.
Lol. It may not be fair but it's the truth. Just because people don't like something doesn't make it not so.0 -
Why do people do it to each other?
(fixed that for you)
Also, kids can be very mean to each other (this includes boys).0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions