Wow, that's some intriguing stuff! Makes a lot of sense.

what an awesome lady.

interesting insights. vk's comment about influence of feminism on our personal understanding of ourselves made me laugh. isn't it funny that the women who gushed about the things we like so much about men are the ones who see that there's a big difference between the sexes? and are the ones that other women don't understand. whom they would despise or call tomboys? ;)

(to overanalyze one of her questions: i personally don't know that i'm projecting until after i start. it's totally unintentional, and it drives me crazy. i fight it, tho. it doesn't seem like many women do...)

I'm fascinated by the assumption that women generally dislike other women. I'm opposed to gender bashing. I like men. I like women. I just don't think they're the same, and I relate to each group differently. Personally, I've found that women observing the female-misogynist behavior are experiencing one of two scenarios. Either they are very insecure, or they are surrounded by large numbers of insecure women (which in this culture is not at all hard to imagine)(Incidentially, I think insecurity is a cultural issue not an evolutionary one except in that it is obvious that society changes although calling that evolutionary seems to imply that the changes are inherently beneficial). Wait. I'm lapsing. My point was that I have been know to indeed "gush" about men, but NEVER in my life have I been called a tomboy. (In many phases of my life I have had mostly guy friends, but that doesn't readily translate into being "one of the guys".) Wouldn't it be fascinating to see Dean post the question "What do men like about women"?

Dean,
What a great, simple question that fostered many wonderful responses. When are you posting the opposite question, er, I mean about women?

Allison: I plan on posting the "what men like about women" question, soon. ;-)

But I'd like to point something out. This is the most female-friendly culture on the planet, and has been for a very long time. In fact, for all that feminists complain about oppression and being "second class citizens," I think that if you look at America at any time in the last 100 years (that's right, I said 100 years), you'll see that whenever women have asked for something, men have always, within a fairly short time period, given it to them with only a minimum of grumbling. You asked us for the vote and we gave it to you. You asked us for laws ending job discrimination and we gave them to you. You asked us to lower physical standards so you could serve in the mlitary, and we lowered them for you. You asked to have careers instead of being expected to stay home, and we said okay. You wanted time off of work without your job being threatened just so you could go have a baby, and we gave that to you too.

Indeed, there's not a single thing that a majority of American women have ever wanted that this culture hasn't, within fairly short order, given them. Except, of course, a man who met all their expectations. ;-)

So if women are insecure in this culture, in what culture would they ever feel more secure?

No, I honestly do believe that a lot of the differences between us are biological, or influenced by biology, and can never be done away with no matter how much tinkering we do with the culture or how much energy we put into telling people that They Aren't Supposed To Have Such Thoughts.

Mind you, I think men have their quirks and weaknesses and limitations too. We haven't talked about those yet, but you must grant me that they exist. I suggest that some of those, too, are not going to change, because they're rooted in human nature and not social conditioning.

I think we do better when we learn to accept and appreciate each other's differences rather than trying to pretend they don't exist.

Dear sweet man! (1) Don't ever be deluded into thinking that I think women in the military is a good idea for a wide variety of reasons :) (2) You'll get no argument from me that this is one of the most female-friendly cultures on the planet. That said, it is also a culture that is promoting an obsession with physical image. Unfortunately, both boys and girls are growing up in a culture that is focusing more and more on image over substance. This can't promote a healthy sense of self-esteem which is generally the perception of self as valuable if they are continually comparing their substance with popular images. (3) "You asked to have careers instead of being expected to stay home". Now, this is certainly another hot-button topic. Instead of being expected to stay home, now I'm EXPECTED to go to work. You wouldn't believe the grief I personally get for staying home with the children. I thought we asked for the CHOICE to have careers. (And before I get hate mail, let me qualify that I am certainly all for women in the workplace, it just so happens that my personal workplace is at home).

Very interesting conversation and I aside from the evolutionary aspects (I don't believe in true evolution, but that's another topic for another day), I think I agree with your assessments of womens' odd relationships with each other.

And Dean, you're correct that today's American society is very female friendly.

I look forward to seeing the responses to your future post asking what men like about women.

I find it most interesting that much of the discussion seems to be informed by relationships with other women, rather than men.

First I'd second your description of VK in your prolouge, she is indeed a sweet and generous person. Second, what a fantastic post! I've often struggled with the "he's doing X, if..." theory. I think your on to something about the years of feminist influence affecting how women accept men and how men accept women. Too much competition, and too little acceptance. Anyway, you two said it better than I ever could, thanks for sharing.

Feh. Double feh. My mother understood AND understands far less than about herself than most women in my generation, and I'm going to prove it to you on my blog. Once I've had my dinner.

Will someone answer this question for me?

Women hate other women for lots of reasons--she's prettier, she's skinnier, she has curly hair and I don't, she has a baby and I don't, I have a baby and she doesn't--the list could go on and on.

Why does there seem to be a special hate in women's circles for a SMART woman?

I have never had a man belittle me for being intelligent, interested in politics/ideas/discussions, a voracious reader, etc. Ever. But time after time after time, I get completely frozen out by women I encounter once we get familiar with each other. It happens at work and in social circles.

And true to the idea of "this is me and that's they way it is", I really didn't worry about it much--until I had a daughter and realized she wasn't being invited to birthday parties and playdates because her friends' MOTHERS didn't like ME.

And it affects my husband since so for many of the men we know, the wife controlls the social life and who they schedule activities with--you get the picture.

I've always heard about hiding your intelligence from a man you're interested in so he won't feel threatened and will find you attractive--and I never did that. So I'll be damned if someone tells me I have to do that the rest of my life to get along with other women. Eventually, it just comes out--and the friendship just kind of tails off.

Any advice/help/insight?

I don't know how to advise you, JW, but I'll note a related phenomenon:

I have noticed that few men have trouble working for a female boss, but lots of women hate working for a female boss.

I have no solid data on this, it's just an impression--one I've had many friends, both male and female, confirm matches their experience as well.

It matches a third thing I've noticed: if you're female, other women are likely to care far more about how you're dressed than the man in your life is.

Regarding the post from Allison - Excuse me, but regarding lower physical standards for women in the military, let me tell you something. I'm 39 years old, and in the Navy Reserves. And I can outrun half the (younger) guys and all of the women in my unit. I don't believe in lower standards for women in the military. I can meet and exceed all the standards for MEN in my age group, and even younger. So there. Women are an integral part of all the military branches. Without women, the military wouldn't function. All of you who would have us go back to the dark ages, get over it!

The military specifically has lowered standards for situps, for pushups, and for making it over walls for females. That's just a fact, and I did not make it up.

Furthermore, the military has redesigned a number of traditional jobs in order to accomodate women's weaker upper body strengths, so that tasks that 25 years ago were assigned to one or two men are now sometimes assigned assigned to two or four people, so that those people with lower upper body strengths would be able to participate.

I did not make these things up, and I did not make these things happen. This is something that women demanded, so our government and military leaders found ways to compromise to meet those demands. So far, the evidence seems to show that it hasn't degraded our military performance. The newer training methods and procedures seem to have coincided with our becoming universally acknowledged as the world's most effective fighting forces, so who am I to argue?

For the record: I don't particularly care if you can run faster and jump higher and kick harder and shoot better than me--that doesn't change the fact that standards were either lowered or changed to make it easier for you to have your career, Dawn. Furthermore, I'm tired of being kicked around and called a brute from the dark ages every time I point out this fact.

In short: you guys asked for it, you got it, and it's dirty pool for you to get mad at me for pointing it out.

Dawn: um, is that carrying the (what?) 60-pound pack Marines have to hump?

Is that taking into account the "equivalent" miles that West Point females get to run? And -as the saying goes- so on?

I'm not saying you can't do what you say you can; knock yourself out! :) I will say that the expected value for women (in terms of general physical performance) is lower than the expected value for men.

This doesn't mean that women can't function in the military. I used to correspond (back in my FidoNet days) with a lady who worked on warships doing damage control. Most of the jobs she performed are do-able by women, and some jobs women do better, since they average smaller than men.

Dean: I can say for the male side that my favorite bosses have been women. I've worked for some damn good male General Managers, but my faves were Holly and Patti. :)

Most of my friends are guys. But I may value my female friends more, because they are (slightly) rarer. The planets have to align a bit better with a chick. But once I have a female friend I like, I usually stick like glue.

It's easier for a woman to be intimidated by another woman, to assume she won't be accepted by the other chick--because that Other Chick is smarter, richer, better-looking--and to just write her off in self-defense.

And we're more suceptible to envy with other women--so there's that too.

The two factors combined make it harder for women to connect in a lasting way.

And if there's a man involved things get sticky pretty fast--but it's that way often enough when men have had to compete over actual or potential lovers. And I've known men who held grudges for amazing periods of time. No material difference there.

I'm one of those women other women tend to resent. It's gotten to the point where I just think, "okay, so you're insecure. And I'm a threat because of my looks or my brains, or both. Thanks for the backhanded compliment."

Dean, you're right about the fact that we often over-think things in relationships--start reading exotic motives into what other people say or do. The flip side of this is that we often catch whole worlds of subtext that Some Men often miss. Men can be socially dense sometimes. It takes years with a man to get to that point where one simply says, "gee, why did he do that?" and can just answer oneself with "because he was tired. Move on, Babe. It means nothing."

Might be evolution--that atavistic feeling that if The Menfolk cut us out, we won't eat--but the women in our lives (besides being competition) are expendable on a certain level. And this is a sad thing.

Because I think most of us are better off with both types of friends.

"Obsessive misogyny?" ME??? Leave it to a Got-Damned woman to bring that out in you, Dean.

Aw, who do you think you're trying to kid, Rob? You live to say bad things about the ladies. A lot of them love you for it anyway though.

And then there are those of us who don't.

"This is the most female-friendly culture on the planet, and has been for a very long time. In fact, for all that feminists complain about oppression and being "second class citizens," I think that if you look at America at any time in the last 100 years (that's right, I said 100 years), you'll see that whenever women have asked for something, men have always, within a fairly short time period, given it to them with only a minimum of grumbling. . . . ."

Dean, this is pretty patronizing. Would you say that whites "gave" blacks their civil rights?

Women started agitating for the vote before the civil war. We got the vote 70 years later. That's not a short period of time. And we didn't get those things when we asked - we only got them when we started demanding, and kept demanding. For decades. And there was plenty of grumbling from men, believe me. We were told the vote would destroy civilization, women who wanted to work were "loose," you name it.

I won't go into the accomplishments of the 70s feminist wave, except to say that when I was in high school, not only was there no such thing as a rape crisis center, women were routinely treated like shit by police for reporting rape and were laughed out of the courtroom for trying to prosecute it. Women were laughed out of martial arts schools for trying to learn self-defense. Secretaries and flight attendants were all female and were expected to act decorative and sexual with customers and bosses. Women were blatantly excluded from many jobs on the reasoning that they would quit at marriage. Women who wanted to do other things besides being a housewife with kids wre considered in need of therapy. Women who didn't orgasm from the missionary position were considered frigid. Gays and lesbians were unrelentingly persecuted. Married women could not get credit in their own name. I could go on and on.

And this is only 30 years ago. And it didn't change when men "gave" us these things. They were not for men to give - they were our rights as equal citizens of this country, and we only got them after thousands of court battles and demonstrations and speeches and personal confrontations.

Go learn some history.

Dean, this is pretty patronizing. Would you say that whites "gave" blacks their civil rights?

It would be racist of you to suggest that whites didn't give civil rights to blacks. Whites have always outumbered blacks by a minimum of 5 to 1, and could have said "fuck you nigger" any time they wanted to.

But in point of fact, when they were confronted with arguments that suggested that their views were immoral, the vast majority of whites consulted their consciences and changed their views.

So no, Judith, it isn't patronizing. It's simply what happened.

Women started agitating for the vote before the civil war. We got the vote 70 years later.

Which is, as any educated person would acknowledge, an amazingly short period of time in human history. Furthermore, any knowledgable person would have to acknowedge that this happened despite the objection of many millions of women who argued that women's suffrage was a bad idea.

So, Judith: where is your gratitude to the men who decided that giving women the vote was the right and just thing to do--despite the fact that many of their mothers, sisters, wifes, and daughters expressed profound doubts about it?

We were told the vote would destroy civilization, women who wanted to work were "loose," you name it.

Yep. And many of those making those arguments were women. In fact, some of the most outspoken making those arguments were female.

But men decided to give women that right anyway. They didn't have to. They could have said "no" and women couldn't have done shit about it. But men said, "Okay, this is the right thing to do, it's the right moral choice."

And so men passed the 19th amendment to give their sisters the right to vote. In fact, let me say that again, in big bold letters:

THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF MEN IN AMERICA RATIFIED THE 19TH AMENDMENT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT WOMEN HAD NO POWER WHATSOEVER TO FORCE THEM TO DO SO.

So tell me, Judith: do you have any gratitude--any gratitude whatsoever--that a majority of men decided that this was the right thing to do?

Compounding the matter was that many women opposed the suffragist agenda. Yet, within barely a century of the franchise becoming universal to all males, women got it too. Solely because they asked for it, and despite the fact that they had no power to force the issue--and despite the fact that millions of women argued that it was a bad idea.

Despite the fact that they didn't have to, and despite the fact that millions of women thought that women's suffrage was a bad idea, the overwhelming majority of men voted to give women the franchise anyway.

So, Judith: on behalf of the overwhelming majority of American men in history, I have only one thing to say to you:

YOU'RE WELCOME.

I won't go into the accomplishments of the 70s feminist wave...

Good, because they are often exaggerated, and often paint a distorted and hateful picture of the men of that era.

...not only was there no such thing as a rape crisis center, women were routinely treated like shit by police for reporting rape and were laughed out of the courtroom for trying to prosecute it....

And yet, I as a man grew up in the 80s, when practically everyone who had a penis was considered a rape suspect. Something I doubt you would appreciate.

Women were laughed out of martial arts schools for trying to learn self-defense.

And when I took martial arts classes in the '80s and '90s, not only were women the norm, but once again, those of us with testes were treated as people who needed to be constantly lectured to about our horrid treatment of women, regardless of our past record in that regard.

Women were blatantly excluded from many jobs on the reasoning that they would quit at marriage.

Which, of course, was a very common thing to happen, and still does happen, although we're called sexist creeps if we acknowledge that reality.

Even though, of course, lots of young women still do quit their jobs once they get pregnant.

Women who wanted to do other things besides being a housewife with kids wre considered in need of therapy.

As opposed to today, where tens of millions of women who say they wish they could be full-time housewives with kids are treated as reactionary freaks.

Women who didn't orgasm from the missionary position were considered frigid.

Which, from what I read of history, is a gross distortion....

Gays and lesbians were unrelentingly persecuted.

As opposed to traditionalist, Orthodox Jews and Christians who are now treated as low-life scumbags if they cling to scripture in these matters and express the least little bit of doubt about the gay agenda...

Married women could not get credit in their own name. I could go on and on.

Yes, the credit bit was sad, but the funny bit is, I could go on and on in other directions you probably wouldn't much like.

Married women could not get credit in their own name. I could go on and on.

Yes! Amazing! IN HALF THE SPAN OF A SINGLE LIFETIME, things have gotten amazingly better for females, and all that happened solely because you asked for change and got it. I'm glad you are grateful and happy about that.

Seriously. Has it ever, for even a second, occurred to you that if a majority of men didn't agree with you, you wouldn't have gotten what you wanted?

Has it, Judith? Have you ever even stopped for a second to consider that?

It would be nice to see you acknowledge that the majority of males were, in the long run, on your side. They'd have had to be, since so many women weren't on your side. (You recall that a majority of American women opposed the ERA, right?)

They were not for men to give...

Wrong. Men had the power all along to say say, "tough shit, bitch." Especially because so many women opposed the feminist agenda, and still do--and by the way, I hope you are not one of those misogynists who says that if a woman disagrees with you, she's merely a brainwashed fool.

In fact, I'd pay money to see you acknowledge that by and large, not a single item on the feminist agenda would ever have passed if a majority of males didn't accede to the will of women.

Will you have the courage to make such an acknowledgement? Because it's true you know.

Go learn some history.

Feh! Back at you, young lady. Perhaps if you knew some history, you wouldn't be such a self-righteous misandrist, and would learn to appreciate the fact that those evil men that you clearly think so little of gave you everything you asked for, despite the fact that your mothers and sisters and even your daughters often opposed you.

Would you say that whites "gave" blacks their civil rights?

I would say that's not the best phrasing, since the American view is that rights are inherent in the individual, not granted by government. "Recognized" rather than "gave" would be better.

So tell me, Judith: do you have any gratitude--any gratitude whatsoever--that a majority of men decided that this was the right thing to do?

yeah! have you stopped to say thanks to people who stopped denying you rights that were yours by birth? huh? And kids whose parents abuse them, they should give thanks when they finally stop being abused!

Dean, do you see the problem with your logic here? It was a failing of men to deny women their rights for so long, and it's an embarrassment for our gender. That we finally stopped acting like brutish oppressors is not sufficient cause for us to be thanked and congratulated. The reason women and minorities have seen an increase in their civil rights is because they've demanded it, and because they've frequently used political, economic, and social pressure to fight for their rights. It's sad to see someone wanting to be thanked for not being evil.

No, Anil, there's no problem with my logic. There is a problem with your view of history, however. And it's a deeply misogynist view of history, by the way.

Fact: throughout the vast span of human history, no one anywhere had a right to vote.

Then, some men got it.

Then, more men got it.

Then, women and men debated whether or not the franchise should be extended to women, with members of both sexes taking positions on both sides of the question.

The notion that the men of history acted like "brutish oppressors" is hateful, misandrist bullshit, and you should apologize to men everywhere, including yourself, for saying such a horribly vicious thing.

In the blink of an eye in historical terms, men gave women the right to vote. They voted to do so in overwhelming numbers, despite the fact that women had no power whatsoever to force them to do it, and despite the fact that most of them had women in their lives who thought it was a bad idea.

If you look at any other right or privilege that's been extended to women in this society--and women do have a lot of privileges in this society that men don't have, by the way--these things only happened because women first asked for them, and men responded by saying "okay." Yes, some men said "no," as did some women, but the fact is that these legislative victories should be viewed as proof positive that the American system works as-designed, not as proof that an evil brutish oppressive patriarchy was forced to do something against its will.

Dean, I once mentioned to you that I liked my history professor; I'm still sure you would have enjoyed him too! He was in his twenties in the 60s, but he was also a Captain in the Army Medical Corps. Not doctrinaire in any way). Talking about the civil rights stuff from your blog... we got started talking about certain influences, and I pointed out that the Army was one of the real leaders in integration. I'm sure that most liberal/lefts would be shocked to hear the contention that the US Army was the most prejudice-free organization in the US, in the 60s. Anyway, I said that it was WW2 that really broke the back of apartheid in this country, as (as the saying goes) "there are no athiests, nor racists, in foxholes". :) Once 8 million GIs had a chance to risk their lives next to a colored boys', I'm sure their point of view changed! In fact, I would claim that the 60s marches, et. al., were just a post script to the main event that had already decided things. When I made this remark to my prof, he told me that certain folks (alas, can't recall the names now) brought suit when the government started passing out all those huge arms contracts even before we started fighting! They won their case, so that companies could not refuse employment to factory arms workers because they were black!! A case of common sense allying with idealism.. :)

So, in a way, the Civil Rights argument was won 20 years before the kids decided to march in the 60s. To segue back to your blog, the power-holders would not have been willing to share that power unless they already agreed that this was a good idea. My contention is that the Second World War (and the experience in Korea with integrated platoons) pretty much decided the battle ahead of time, as it were.

Boy, everyone needs to do their breathing exercises.

Yeah, VK--I don't get women reading Acidman. I tend to vote with my feet, there. (Think of all the time I can save by just calling *myself* a "cunt," rather than following someone's link back to Gut Rumbles. Big timesaver.)

Dean--three minor things:

1) Women did more than "ask" for the vote. They got thrown in jail and force-fed, and it was awful. The process entailed more than asking. A lot of lobbying, a lot of civil disobedience.

2) Women were originally supposed to get the vote when black men did. They were put off with, "no, this is the Negro's hour." And then it was decades more before it happened. I doubt it seemed like "the blink of an eye" to those who watched the window appear to open--and then slam shut again.

3) A right is not given by another individual. A right is granted by God. It's "self-evident." And more become "self-evident" as we go along.

A lot of enlightened men saw the self-evident nature of this, and acted in accordance with the insight.

I'm truly grateful to all involved. Many, many of whom were male.

Okay?

Women are their own worst enemies. Always have, always will.

Meanwhile, I'm thankful that this conversation is occuring on Dean's blog and not mine.

I "gave" that to you, Dean.

Gonna thank me?

Esmay:
>>The notion that the men of history acted like "brutish oppressors" is hateful, misandrist bullshit

Ah, so "defending the liberal tradition in lookitmelookitme" is best done through formless, arid bullshit that half-heartedly wedges the vast complexities of history into the infantile talking points of an attention-starved dolt.

Go, brave reductionist, go.

Dean,
I hate to be picky but I noticed several times you refered to women as guys.
Do you have issues with the more correct word gals?
I can see using guys in mixed company but when you are talking exclusively about women why not say gals?

Starhawk: maybe in your part of the country, that is true, but for a lot of us, "guys" has become a gender-neutral word. :) Kinda like both men and women are now actors, or both men and women are heros.

Collins: well, you certainly have bowled me over with your brilliant logic, and masterful summary of the facts...

Damn, my bad, I was reading Dean's original post! Whoopsie.

Good job; grabbing a one-line conclusion, and calling it "formless, arid bullshit." Pity you didn't bother to back it up with anything like, oohhh, reasoning, or facts. Heh.

Dean talks like that because there really are so many deconstructionist goobers out there who really do think that way. And, alas, they have a lot of political and literary pull in the West (moreso in Europe than America, thank God!)

Now, if you have any facts to contradict what Dean has said, or effective reasoning, I'm sure he would be glad to hear it. :)

Women are a helluva lot more liberated now than ever before, but does anyone think society's becoming more sexist in a different way? I'm talking about the amount of sex appeal shoved down our throats whenever we switch on the TV.
I know you're rolling your eyes, but I am so sick of seeing sweaty near-naked horny bodies dirty-dancing everywhere! Men, obviously, are shown with lots of sex appeal as well, but way more women in the media look as if they're good for only one thing.
Sometimes I feel as if I'm watching soft porn when I watch commercials and video clips. The media seems to be mainly directed towards a male audience, or at least that's the impression I get. It sucks because it teaches everyone that looks come before talent, even though it ain't really true.

Women are a helluva lot more liberated now than ever before, but does anyone think society's becoming more sexist in a different way? I'm talking about the amount of sex appeal shoved down our throats whenever we switch on the TV.
I know you're rolling your eyes, but I am so sick of seeing sweaty near-naked horny bodies dirty-dancing everywhere! Men, obviously, are shown with lots of sex appeal as well, but way more women in the media look as if they're good for only one thing.
Sometimes I feel as if I'm watching soft porn when I watch commercials and video clips. The media seems to be mainly directed towards a male audience, or at least that's the impression I get. It sucks because it teaches everyone that looks come before talent, even though it ain't really true.