Why do women do it to each other?

AlanTuring

Oh, I do understand about nature and nurture both being factors in many things.

As far as trying to quantify trauma, I understand the reasoning in attempting to do that. I just disagreed with the conclusions they came to and do not see any evidence supporting that aspect of the book.

Yeah, I can see it. And I mean, there are layers to this sort of thing, but really, it's so damned subjective that I can't even think of how to make a scale that's anywhere near useful.

That said, I was molested for about three years as a kid and I think that sex definitely had a fair bit to do with the 'why' on that one, though I don't deny that there was a power aspect. And I'd say that it cause me about 2.6 Megatraumas. :P

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.

Yes, I'm definitely not a strident feminist who studies sexism at great length, and I have no idea what a sexism is. Plz tell me moar about these sexisms I keep hearing so much about.

The fact is that you're making a really terrible argument that isn't even an argument. It's just an assertion. You haven't provided any facts, you've just screamed "THAT BOOK'S HELLA SEXISTS" without providing any reason why, other than you not liking it.

KettleTO

The teenage years are hell. Especially if you are different and who isn't?

I used to swim competitively as kid and a pre-teen before the other girls got too fast. I rediscovered lap swimming and master's training swimming as an adult. It used to pain me as I changing to go into pool the teen swim would be finishing and the girls would be coming into the change rooms. They were toxic to be around. Fighting to change in private, constantly being overly critical of themselves and other girls.

All I could ever think was that I don't miss being that age and that insecure about my body at all. You wish you transmit the knowledge you have now to your teenage self and every girl in the change room. Sadly, these are lessons you have to learn for yourself and usually the hard way.

BinaryPulsar

Oh, I do understand about nature and nurture both being factors in many things.

As far as trying to quantify trauma, I understand the reasoning in attempting to do that. I just disagreed with the conclusions they came to and do not see any evidence supporting that aspect of the book.

Yeah, I can see it. And I mean, there are layers to this sort of thing, but really, it's so damned subjective that I can't even think of how to make a scale that's anywhere near useful.

That said, I was molested for about three years as a kid and I think that sex definitely had a fair bit to do with the 'why' on that one, though I don't deny that there was a power aspect. And I'd say that it cause me about 2.6 Megatraumas. :P

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.

Yes, I'm definitely not a strident feminist who studies sexism at great length, and I have no idea what a sexism is. Plz tell me moar about these sexisms I keep hearing so much about.

The fact is that you're making a really terrible argument that isn't even an argument. It's just an assertion. You haven't provided any facts, you've just screamed "THAT BOOK'S HELLA SEXISTS" without providing any reason why, other than you not liking it.

I 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.

LiftAllThePizzas

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

AlanTuring

I 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.

Wait, I wasn't traumatized because I couldn't get pregnant? Man, THAT'S a relief. *wipes brow* :P

nokanjaijo

It says that competitive behavior over mates is already well documented in males. Not that they almost unilaterally attempt to socially attack anyone that they see as a competitor.

Again, if you have some studies that say that's the case, I'll gladly agree that I'm wrong on this one. But I already explained how that's different, so I'm not sure if you're trolling or just didn't understand my post.

It says it is well documented that men aggressively compete. They use aggression. In behavioral sciences, that means an intention to cause harm or an act intended to increase relative social dominance.

I am not trolling. I genuinely believe the study you provided does not support your argument.

Also, please notice that that is all I am saying. I've not contended anything else. I am not telling you that you are wrong or that I can disprove you. I am simply saying that I don't think the study you provided says what you think it says.

vmekash

If they are supposed to be friends, that seems like weird behavior to me.

TheLuSir

Health is no laughing matter. Though, obesity can be overcome by healthy habits, good luck exercising that narrow-mind.

AlanTuring

It says it is well documented that men aggressively compete. They use aggression. In behavioral sciences, that means an intention to cause harm or an act intended to increase relative social dominance.

I am not trolling. I genuinely believe the study you provided does not support your argument.

Also, please notice that that is all I am saying. I've not contended anything else. I am not telling you that you are wrong or that I can disprove you. I am simply saying that I don't think the study you provided says what you think it says.

Being aggressive and socially attacking someone directly as well as tearing down their worth in the eyes of others are still very different things, imo. Again, if you have something that says that guys attack each other socially in a manner that's remotely similar, I'll be happy to listen.

Guys certainly compete in an aggressive way over mates, but that's very different from using snark and social attacks and body language to attempt to undermine and tear down others, which is what I was going for.

nokanjaijo

Guys certainly compete in an aggressive way over mates

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?

WendyTerry420

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.

AlanTuring

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?

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."

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.

WendyTerry420

i made it through the first handful of comments before I decided this thread is worthless misogynist crap.

Have a nice day.

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.

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? IDK

goldied01

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!

WendyTerry420

I 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.

Wait, I wasn't traumatized because I couldn't get pregnant? Man, THAT'S a relief. *wipes brow* :P

( http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/us/politics/rep-todd-akin-legitimate-rape-statement-and-reaction.html?_r=0 )

CorvusCorax77

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!"

nokanjaijo

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.

LiftAllThePizzas

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!"

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. (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:

BinaryPulsar

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!"

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. (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.

CorvusCorax77

Xx