Why do women do it to each other?

Reza151

I still have a friend like this. She lost over 30 lbs eating like a bird and while in a size 2, she has no musclar definition and is definitely skinny fat. Not the way I choose to have my body. She still eats like **** and talks about how she isnt even hungry anymore, so she only eats like, once a day. Constantly tells me that I'm eating too much to lose weight (And I'm shooting for 1600 - 1800 calories net!)

Same friend who thinks that lifting weights will cause me to get bulky, and she doesnt want get bulky. And "too bad you just arent built to be a size 2". This chick is 5'5" and 110 lbs. Thanks, but no thanks, I'm shooting for 140-150 and looking good naked for my husband.

Rock on! Show that bish what you got!:drinker:

LiftAllThePizzas

who clearly defied his biological mandate to reproduce.

What happened?

The 'mandate' of a specimen is not specifically to reproduce but to ensure maximum replication/success of other copies of its genes. That doesn't just include direct offspring, it also includes anyone else who is carrying copies of your genes. Alan Turing had 4 nephews and nieces, who carried as many copies of his genes as two of his own offspring would have. His work protected their future, so he did fulfill his 'mandate' without reproducing. :P

While this is true, how he died also deprived them of what could have been a better future.

Totally agreed. As someone who has done programming for 30 years, and built Turing machines among some of those programs, the story of how society treated him is especially crappy.

But the moral of the story is that anyone who thinks that the fight for gender equality is over should be punched in the nose.

I don't think that talking about it on a website is more meaningful than actually living in direct contradiction to and stomping all over traditional gender roles.

determinedbutlazy

We're not all like that.

Monica_has_a_goal

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?

Did you intervene and encourage the "over weight" girl to continue and not give into ridicule? :huh:

AlanTuring

Wait, who's this gay computer scientist you guys are talking about?!

ninerbuff

I think your question is really more about teenagers. As a whole, I don't see women as 'mean'. Yes, some are, but not any that I associate with LOL.

I find that women will talk about other women a lot. Most of the time it's criticizing clothes, hair, make up, body, SO,etc. At this is just at the gym. Can't imagine what is said at professional work places.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

upgetupgetup

Nice snakes, by the way. Are those all corn snakes?

Yep, the ones in my profile are all corns. (I have a few other colubrids.)

It's sloppily applied evolutionary logic. (Which is sexist.)

The logic is not sloppy. Optimal male and female reproductive strategies are clearly different and for fairly obvious reasons, such as the fact that men have nine months to leave and get other women pregnant in the meantime. Men can make a larger number of offspring, risking a higher mortality/failure rate individually and still have an overall higher success rate. Men can also use "nest parasitism" type of strategies that aren't nearly so easy for females. The differences could cover chapters in a book, but you get the idea.

His wording might be lacking, but that is depending on expectations of how the audience might receive it. Perhaps he is used to a different audience who does not infer value judgments from facts.

Was not talking about the logic of investment strategies, but of the teleological business attached to the use of "for" etc in the bit quoted earlier.

determinedbutlazy

In addition, women on these forums get a bollocking about generalising when they say "why are all guys such jerks about xyz", but when it's about women it becomes immediately a "sexism" issue not a "generalisation" issue?

TheLuSir

Exactly

:P

jenilla1

This is not necessarily typical. I think it just really stands out when you see it happen. The women in my life are very supportive and as a teen I would not have been friends with nasty b*tches like that. I was also a high school teacher for over ten years and most of the kids were not horrible to one another, but the ones who were just really stood out. It was like there was that 10-15% of jerks that were making everybody else look bad. You see a lot of nastiness on TV too, which maybe makes it seems more the norm than it really is. :flowerforyou:

AlanTuring

In addition, women on these forums get a bollocking about generalising when they say "why are all guys such jerks about xyz", but when it's about women it becomes immediately a "sexism" issue not a "generalisation" issue?

Is there really much of a difference? I mean, prejudiced generalizing based on gender is pretty much sexism, yeah?

ninerbuff

Guys can be some the meanest to one another. Super competitive about how much weight they can lift, whatever they modded their car with last week, etc. The minute a guy wears a pink shirt or actually acts a little compassionate he is usually called out on it and mocked for being effeminite etc. How many times have I heard a guy call one of his friends a b@#$ or a pu$$y. This sort of wolf pack teasing is considered normal though, and I think when we see similar behavior in women we tend to think of it as b@#chy or catty.

The thing is though, I don't believe men take it on a personal level (at least if it's just a single event). I'll be the first to admit that I conform a lot in my marriage and every once in awhile I'll get the "you're p$&%y whipped" remark. Most guys like myself laugh it off and usually reply in sarcasm ("You don't have to live with her" is a common reply).

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

rm7161

Nice snakes, by the way. Are those all corn snakes?

Yep, the ones in my profile are all corns. (I have a few other colubrids.)

It's sloppily applied evolutionary logic. (Which is sexist.)

The logic is not sloppy. Optimal male and female reproductive strategies are clearly different and for fairly obvious reasons, such as the fact that men have nine months to leave and get other women pregnant in the meantime. Men can make a larger number of offspring, risking a higher mortality/failure rate individually and still have an overall higher success rate. Men can also use "nest parasitism" type of strategies that aren't nearly so easy for females. The differences could cover chapters in a book, but you get the idea.

His wording might be lacking, but that is depending on expectations of how the audience might receive it. Perhaps he is used to a different audience who does not infer value judgments from facts.

Was not talking about the logic of investment strategies, but of the teleological business attached to the use of "for" etc in the bit quoted earlier.

This.

There's no designer or some sort of grand design or blueprint in evolution, which is the implication when someone invokes the teleological language surrounding "meant for". That is what makes it sloppy.

Serp pretty much answered himself though when he replied to me about Turing's legacy benefiting his family, which goes to show that there are a large variety of genetic strategies, that doesn't always involve biological reproduction for a particular individual. Thought that should be obvious.

determinedbutlazy

In addition, women on these forums get a bollocking about generalising when they say "why are all guys such jerks about xyz", but when it's about women it becomes immediately a "sexism" issue not a "generalisation" issue?

Is there really much of a difference? I mean, prejudiced generalizing based on gender is pretty much sexism, yeah?

My point being, when it's WOMEN who are the victim of it, it's branded sexism but when it's men it's rarely presented as sexism. Like you can't be sexist against men?

Either way, some women are *****es, some aren't. Some men are total d-bags, some aren't. Best not to smear an entire gender due to the acts of some of its members. There's a difference between being *****y and being outright hurtful. I'll mutter a snide "that's the ugliest effing skirt i've ever seen" to my best friend while walking down the street, but I would never march up to the ugly-effing-skirt-wearer and be like "DAMN *****, THAT SKIRT NASTY".

AlanTuring

My point being, when it's WOMEN who are the victim of it, it's branded sexism but when it's men it's rarely presented as sexism. Like you can't be sexist against men?

Either way, some women are *****es, some aren't. Some men are total d-bags, some aren't. Best not to smear an entire gender due to the acts of some of its members. There's a difference between being *****y and being outright hurtful. I'll mutter a snide "that's the ugliest effing skirt i've ever seen" to my best friend while walking down the street, but I would never march up to the ugly-effing-skirt-wearer and be like "DAMN *****, THAT SKIRT NASTY".

Sounds like you're wailing on a strawman on this one. No one's arguing that discrimination based on gender isn't sexist, as far as I can tell.

To be fair however, we can definitely agree on one thing - that skirt HELLA nasty.

LiftAllThePizzas

Just curious since the "b" word keeps being thrown around here, does anyone in this conversation breed dogs and keep intact males/females and see the differences between male/male, male/female, and female/female interactions? (Hence the application of the b word to human females.)

Serp pretty much answered himself though when he replied to me about Turing's legacy benefiting his family, which goes to show that there are a large variety of genetic strategies, that doesn't always involve biological reproduction for a particular individual. Thought that should be obvious.

It is obvious to anyone with a proper understanding of evolutionary algorithms and a gene-centric view. The comment I was replying to (saying he didn't fulfill his biological mandate) suggested to me that you didn't have that view. Unfortunately most people never get past the "survival of the fittest (specimen)" approach to evolution.

vashnic

Just curious since the "b" word keeps being thrown around here, does anyone in this conversation breed dogs and keep intact males/females and see the differences between male/male, male/female, and female/female interactions? (Hence the application of the b word to human females.)

Serp pretty much answered himself though when he replied to me about Turing's legacy benefiting his family, which goes to show that there are a large variety of genetic strategies, that doesn't always involve biological reproduction for a particular individual. Thought that should be obvious.

It is obvious to anyone with a proper understanding of evolutionary algorithms and a gene-centric view. The comment I was replying to (saying he didn't fulfill his biological mandate) suggested to me that you didn't have that view. Unfortunately most people never get past the "survival of the fittest (specimen)" approach to evolution.

Intact dogs can be *kitten*/piss on things they shouldn't more than neutered dogs. It depends on the dog more than status of his testicles. Intact b*tches and spayed ones are mostly the same, except during heat when you need to keep the intact ones separate from intact males or end up with puppies. Males/females don't treat each other differently in any appreciable manner beyond individual preferences. Much like with humans. None of this has to do with 'b*tch' as an insult.

B*tch as a pejorative was originally used to insult women who acted lewd (read: wanted/enjoyed sex) akin to a b*tch in heat. The implication is/was that promiscuous women were nothing better than animals. Little to do with comparative inter-species behavior and lots to do with being sh*tty and shaming to women. Later, it became a general use insult for women if they failed to meet gender roles and men who acted how society thought women behaved.

As a side note, it chaps my *kitten* when people cherry pick through reproductive strategies as a basis for defending *kitten* behavior.

kdeaux1959

Probably more a function of the teenage thing than the fact they were women. Teens seem to derive a great deal of self-identity in comparing themselves to others... Yes, we see older women doing it... men have their variation of it as well... but it is especially notable with many teens... immaturity.

LiftAllThePizzas

Wow, nevermind. I find the reasons behind human and animal behavior fascinating, and the best way to keep one's self from understand something is to make value judgments about it. Apparently everyone else here is only interested in what they can label as immoral or unfair or sexist, and assume every statement made by anyone else is also a value judgment too. Have fun with that.

CorvusCorax77

who clearly defied his biological mandate to reproduce.

What happened?

The 'mandate' of a specimen is not specifically to reproduce but to ensure maximum replication/success of other copies of its genes. That doesn't just include direct offspring, it also includes anyone else who is carrying copies of your genes. Alan Turing had 4 nephews and nieces, who carried as many copies of his genes as two of his own offspring would have. His work protected their future, so he did fulfill his 'mandate' without reproducing. :P

While this is true, how he died also deprived them of what could have been a better future.

Totally agreed. As someone who has done programming for 30 years, and built Turing machines among some of those programs, the story of how society treated him is especially crappy.

But the moral of the story is that anyone who thinks that the fight for gender equality is over should be punched in the nose.

I don't think that talking about it on a website is more meaningful than actually living in direct contradiction to and stomping all over traditional gender roles.

I just want to say that I don't think we individuall have to live in contradiction to traditional gender roles. For me, that is just as limiting as saying I have to be a Girly girl. What we need is simply to change how we think, so each one of us can be who we are without all the negative programming getting in the way. If I wanna stay home and make babies and raise babies and I have a husband who wants to support me financially as I do that, I don't see that as being any better or worse than me being a single thirty something woman with a successful career and a gorgeous girlfriend that I come home to (or multiple lovers, or no lover, whatever floats my boat and isn't coercive or illegal!).