?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

So I can not fracking sleep tonight. This fever is refusing to go away, even after I've waged a fierce two-pronged attack on it with Advil and Tylenol, and I feel like I'm about to hork up a lung. Truly, I am a walking shambling catastrophe.

The fourth night zaiah was here, and the first night I had this damn fever, I woke up from a very strange dream. My dreams tend to be a bit weird to begin with, but when I have a fever, look out.

This is actually a post about societal fears of women's sexuality and sexual double standards. Bear with me; I'm a bit fuzzy-headed at the moment, and apt to be preternaturally rambly. Now where was I?

Oh, yeah. fever dream. Anyway, I had this dream, and in this dream I'd met and made friends with a woman. Don't recall her clearly--long black hair, big brown eyes, that's all that stuck.

Anyway, in the dream, shortly after we became friends, a group of researchers pulled me aside and explained to me that she wasn't actually a woman at all. She was a synthetic construct--body engineered and grown in a vat, brain a gigantic supercomputer kept in a huge facility elsewhere in town and remotely operating the body. She was not aware of any of this; she was actually an experiment in artificial intelligence, socialization, and the development of self, carefully monitored over the past thirty years. The place where she lived--a gorgeous penthouse suite, indoor pool and all--was closely monitored 'round the clock, and all her interactions with the outside world were carefully regulated. She was encouraged to keep a private diary, which she believed was secret but which was actually published monthly in a trade journal about AI and machine consciousness.

They took me up to the control room and let me read some of the back issues of the journal. One of her diary entries was particularly strange; she'd somehow got her hands on a book of basic anatomy, and was utterly perplexed that the book showed things that she didn't have. Specifically, the book showed reproductive and sex organs, and she had nothing of the sort--no sexual organs whatsoever between her legs. No labia, no vagina, nothing. The researchers, somewhat shamefacedly, said they had been too embarrassed to put them in the design when they were growing the body.




I woke up really, really pissed off, with nothing to attach the pissed-off-ness to. It took some introspection to figure out what the pissed-off-ness was connected with; this bizarre and nearly universal sexual shame that we as a species seem to attach to female sexuality.

I'm not talking about the schizophrenic Puritanical sexual asshattery that we in the US attach to sex in general. I'm talking about a hatred of sexual expression in women that's so virulent that entire societies will surgically mutilate women to prevent them from enjoying the act of sex.

And make no mistake about it--the impulse to label sexually promiscuous men as "studs" and sexually promiscuous women as "whores" is no different in kind; it is the exact same impulse, merely taken to a different but equally illogical conclusion, that drives folks to get out the scalpels.

And it's frickin' everywhere. It's not just a handful of societies. It's not just a few places. It's everywhere. The ancient Israelites had all kinds of weird religious rules about touching women when they were 'unclean,' that speaks to a level of institutionalized abhorrence and fear of basic reproductive biology that's mind-boggling. In Hindu societies, a woman who committed adultery was publicly executed after first having her sex organs cut off with a knife--and the real kicker is that for this purpose, "adultery" could be defined as "talking with a man and touching his clothing."

This is a level of fucked-up-ness I can't quite wrap my head around. Seems like everyone's just scared silly of women's sexuality. Seriously, WTF?




The part that really blows my mind, though, and the part I really don't get, is the extent to which women themselves buy into this kind of thing. One thing that consistently mazes me on online forums that have anything to do with discussions of sex or sexuality--any time a woman talks about how much she likes sex, or about enjoying any kind of non-traditional sexual arrangements, especially things like polyamory or (God forbid) casual sex, there will be a handful of guys who'll say things like "slut!"--but they have to stand in line behind all the women who're screaming it, too.

And I really want to grab some of these women and shake them and say "WTF is wrong with you? Don't you understand that by slinging around words like "slut" and "whore," you're participating in your own sexual disenfranchisement? What are you thinking?"

And I'm not even talking about the fun use of the word "slut," as in the "My, aren't YOU a naughty little vixen? I have just the thing for a naughty slut like you!" that dayo so enjoys hearing.

So, naturally, since I couldn't sleep, I decided that zaiah shouldn't sleep either, and woke her up to talk about it.




Enlightening conversation, it was.

She is of the opinion that, popular opinion to the contrary, women are if anything fare more competitive and far more hierarchical than men are. Take a group of three female friends in a bar, she says. Each of them knows precisely what her place in the hierarchy is. If they spot a group of three men across the bar, they've already decided which one gets who before the first words are even exchanged. Should one of the men approach the "wrong" woman, her friends will smoothly step in and cock-block him, and order is restored. With, naturally, the men none the wiser.

It starts in grade school, she says--a formalized, competitive hierarchy of popularity and subtle social status, with rigorous standards about which women are eligible to compete for which men. It continues through high school and college, and even carries out into the adult world--often, she says, women wear makeup and jewelry not for the direct benefit of men, but rather to signal to other women their status and intentions in the competition.

And it's a ruthless competition, with a high cost for those who refuse to buy in.

The cost of not buying in? The women who don't compete in this way, or who pursue men deemed above their status or outside their league? These are the women labeled "slut" and "tramp"--not by men, but by other women.

Color me astonished; I'm forty-two years old and none of this had ever occurred to me.

So, yeah. Dreams and fever: interesting combination. Now I'm going to take some more meds and try to go to bed.


Comments

( 101 comments — Leave a comment )
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
kindredsgirl
Dec. 20th, 2008 04:19 am (UTC)
I'm clueless too. . . . I don't know how to play those games about status and heirarchy.
addiejd
Dec. 20th, 2008 08:01 am (UTC)
I am clueless as well. I think it's due to a combination of being an Aspy, and therefore clueless about most social intricacies, and that for the most part I have never been interested in the same type of guys as my female friends are.

Up until my early twenties all my female friends were of the traditional variety (at least in regard to their mating preferences), that being the girly makeup wearing type who dug guys who were the "popular" guys in the high school sense of popular; they pretty much went after the most socially desirable guys that they could get. I, on the other hand, wear makeup half a dozen times per year, haven't worn a dress in a year and a half, and would much rather have my guys play D&D than football. Thus, I never really competed with them.

Once I reached late college age I decided that monogamy was optional (I'm still mostly monogamous by nature, I just don't like those types of rules), and just about all my female friends, except the few I kept from high school and earlier, are poly; most of them being either girls that were/are dating guys I was/am, or girls that are a couple steps removed from romantic relationships I've had. So again, there's really no competition there.
(no subject) - terriaminute - Dec. 20th, 2008 02:25 pm (UTC) - Expand
libbydabomb
Dec. 20th, 2008 04:24 am (UTC)
And for some of the very things you mention here (competition between women only or men and women, etc.) I've pretty much have given up on dating and all things pertaining to seeking out a relationship. I also find myself wary of some of the women in my life. I am subconsciously aware of this "competition" and it annoys the hell out of me.

I'd rather be the seeked than the seeker.
violet_tigress1
Dec. 20th, 2008 04:38 am (UTC)
Wouldn't we all.
BBW... busy black woman - libbydabomb - Dec. 20th, 2008 04:40 am (UTC) - Expand
violet_tigress1
Dec. 20th, 2008 04:35 am (UTC)
It starts even before grade school.


(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
libbydabomb
Dec. 20th, 2008 04:42 am (UTC)
the shifting of our ideologies on sexuality would require a total upheaval of our current thought system/pattern. Until the patriarchal elite lose their handle on society will it be able to break such sexist beliefs.
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - nornagest - Jan. 4th, 2009 09:02 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacit - Dec. 22nd, 2008 09:46 pm (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - tacit - Dec. 22nd, 2008 10:06 pm (UTC) - Expand
the_failed_poet
Dec. 20th, 2008 04:41 am (UTC)
Really? Really? Women do that? I SO did not know any of that. Completely unaware of this competition thingummy. And no one's called me a slut or a whore yet.

This is going to make me really paranoid for the next couple of days, Franklin. >.> Thanks.
tacit
Dec. 22nd, 2008 09:47 pm (UTC)
Sowing the seeds of paranoia and fear...that's what I'm here for!
(no subject) - edwardmartiniii - Dec. 23rd, 2008 04:25 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacit - Dec. 23rd, 2008 04:50 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - edwardmartiniii - Dec. 23rd, 2008 05:17 pm (UTC) - Expand
saluqi
Dec. 20th, 2008 04:44 am (UTC)
I think some men are just as competitive about hierarchy as some women, probably more so.

It's just that lines are drawn around areas of expertise which means that GENERALLY speaking men are unlikely to pick up on the implications of a clothes and makeup based put down, and women are less likely to pick up on the implications of a boys toys related put down or dick waving.

And there is a good proportion of both men and women who don't buy into that stuff thank god. I've never considered ignoring bitches in bars has had a high cost associated with it. I do my own thing.
(Deleted comment)
james_the_evil1
Dec. 20th, 2008 04:55 am (UTC)
Yep. Same basic line of thought as what I was typing while you posted. :-)
(no subject) - tedeisenstein - Dec. 20th, 2008 05:20 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - claws_n_stripes - Dec. 20th, 2008 05:51 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tedeisenstein - Dec. 20th, 2008 11:26 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - claws_n_stripes - Dec. 20th, 2008 02:48 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tedeisenstein - Dec. 20th, 2008 03:13 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - claws_n_stripes - Dec. 20th, 2008 11:36 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - fangirl715 - Dec. 20th, 2008 04:10 pm (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - tacit - Dec. 22nd, 2008 09:49 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - redhotlips - Dec. 20th, 2008 02:44 pm (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
james_the_evil1
Dec. 20th, 2008 04:50 am (UTC)
Well YEAH Franklin. Think about evolutionary biology, and how MEN compete and vie for status among one another with things like war, sports, killing the most animals, etc. I actually am getting ready to make a journal entry on how guys who spend more money on women are more successful in attaining greater numbers of sexual partners.

Guys are just more SHOWY about how they "set" such status, and blatant in discussing it... "Forget it dude, she's OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE," for instance, and that even uses a sports ranking metaphor.

Plus women are evil bitches, for the most part. :-)
violet_tigress1
Dec. 20th, 2008 05:05 am (UTC)
Whatevr you say, hollow boy.
Men are strange creatures, and mostly hollow.
(no subject) - james_the_evil1 - Dec. 20th, 2008 05:23 am (UTC) - Expand
ravenssword
Dec. 20th, 2008 05:16 am (UTC)
heirarchy is not just sexual
You know it isn't just coming from peers. I had been married to my now ex husband for years and I was constantly put down in little ways about my upbringing. He'd make jokes about me being barefoot and pregnant and called me an "Appalacian American." Because I grew up in rural Md.

Despite having an IQ of 155, three college degrees and more practical common sense [especially when it came to power tools and protecting oneself from the future apocolypse] His viewpoint persisted.

In fact when I got dressed up in heels and put on make up he went so far as to say that he hated it because I looked artificial. It was to make it so I knew my place.

This heirarchy is not just about female sexuality it is about female power and the fear that sexuality controls men [cause we do...] So another way of keeping "us" in check is to use our cultural stereotypes against us.

My ex mother in law once told my mother in a phone conversation that "well [he] married beneath him..." and she obviously forgot who she was talking to.

I like being a whore. And I accept being an evil bitch cause it is fun. It gives me power. And now I don't have someone taking that away because I am a sexual being. I also like that I can be a woman in all senses of the word and not have someone take that away to make me asexual and powerless to do anything for myself.
james_the_evil1
Dec. 20th, 2008 05:25 am (UTC)
Re: heirarchy is not just sexual
And I accept being an evil bitch cause it is fun.

Thank you. You wanna 'splain to violet_tigress1 that it's not automatically a bad thing to say that?? :-D
Heh, "Their food" is a really amusing phrase - 7owti5 - Dec. 21st, 2008 02:52 am (UTC) - Expand
jaime29
Dec. 20th, 2008 05:47 am (UTC)
the other side of some of those evil Israelite standards of uncleanliness
Fascinating, really, that soooooo many people out there know a ton about sending the "unclean" women off to live at the edge of the village and all the laws about when men can touch them and when they can't, and yet hardly anyone writes or talks about the ritual bath (or m'shevn'ya, for those of you whose Hebrew might be a tad rusty): it's an old rite, true, and not practiced a lot by many people anymore, also true (a friend of mine and i have an ongoing bet that's it's largely been lodged int he kabbalistic circles, but that's beside the point), but it does happen and can be quite fulfilling, both for the man and the woman, as well as the two of them together.

Just sayin'.

Too: as many here have said, there are a lot of people out there who don't buy into the whole patriarchial/jierarchial/big dick contest schema. My wife and i have what most people consider an alternative marriage-- and that's when they're being careful and polite and so PC it hurts-- but it works for us. By most comparisons, she would be considered dominant, i'd be considered passive, and let's not even talk about the roles of who does what in our marriage. And while that may screw up the radar of all but the people who know us, well, as the man said: fuck'em if they can't take it.
winterlady
Dec. 20th, 2008 12:33 pm (UTC)
Re: the other side of some of those evil Israelite standards of uncleanliness
True - but you don't send your wife to the village edge when she has her period, either. So while the m'shevn'ya is ritualistic in nature, it's not fulfilling it's ritualized role, really.

That's what I object to - the fact that women having natural body functions are considered "unclean" anywhere does speak to a deep problem. If for centuries, men got their penises smacked when they had an erection, after a while, intended or not, they'd start to feel bad about having them - and experience shame for the desire to have them.

It's just all 'round wrong. ::hugs::
the_xtina
Dec. 20th, 2008 05:55 am (UTC)
Color me astonished; I'm forty-two years old and none of this had ever occurred to me.

None of it ever had to occur to you.  You're male, so you can kind of get away with not paying attention to about how women interact.
joreth
Dec. 20th, 2008 05:59 am (UTC)
The realization of these kinds of games and hierarchy rules for women was the first sign I had that I did not identify as female.

I mean, I was aware that both genders have elaborate rituals and rules to manage hierarchy and social standing, but I only ever grasped the details of the men's games. None of them of either gender made sense to me, as in I didn't understand why we needed to play these games, but I caught on more quickly to the rules for guys than for girls.

I *still* don't get girls. But it's really fucking frustrating to have other women contribute to all the gender problems I have in society and at work.

I'm very open about my sexuality and my relationships at work. Several of my male coworkers have confided in me that I make them feel comfortable being themselves, and they often come to me for relationship advice. One guy even asked me to be his first lay post-divorce because he feared being "rusty" having been with the same woman for so long, and he felt relaxed around me, and that he could trust me because of my open acceptance of sexuality. However, he and another coworker also told me, in a completely unrelated conversation, that the only other girl on the crew had made the usual "slut" remarks to them when I was out of earshot. She was not happy with their acceptance of me as either "one of the guys" or as a girl that they admired.

*shakes head* I just don't get it.
edwardmartiniii
Dec. 20th, 2008 07:51 am (UTC)
Oh yep.

I had an ex introduce me to the writings of Nancy Friday, and Friday's take on female competitiveness and sexuality was really very different than any other stuff I'd read on the topic.

I've read a few feminist things that basically thrashed on Friday for her attitudes about sexuality, power, etc. but oh well. I tend to think of anything written against sex as being anti-sex, regardless of the "motive."
Ever since reading that, I've been keeping a different eye on things and I can often see the little undercurrents. Crazy stuff!

tacit
Dec. 22nd, 2008 09:53 pm (UTC)
Same Nancy Friday of My Secret Garden fame?
(no subject) - edwardmartiniii - Dec. 22nd, 2008 10:14 pm (UTC) - Expand
(Anonymous)
Dec. 20th, 2008 08:10 am (UTC)
Color me astonished; I'm forty-two years old and none of this had ever occurred to me.

Well, color me astonished as well, as I'm a 28 year old woman and this has never occured to me either. OK, not quite: I hear about such things from time to time (like in your post now, or in a film); but I always thought that such descriptions were wild exaggerations, because I've never witnessed this myself. Now I think it's all probably true -- I just never cared, that's why I didn't notice. I've always been so far outside any hierarchy that I was not even aware of the hierarchy's existence. Not in school, not in high school, not in college. I just don't care about any of this... I suspect it's a revelation many people need: all this shit can only hurt you if you're into it. Do other women call me names behind my back? I don't know... never thought of it... Does it matter?

- Ola
onmyownterms
Dec. 20th, 2008 10:08 am (UTC)
As a woman...
who refused to "buy in" to the heirarchy from the very beginning (mostly because as a teenager I 'gender identified' with males), I have been called a slut my entire life. My response has always been, "Thank you, by calling me a slut you are referring to a woman who enjoys sex and is empowered to pick her own partners without regard to social convention."
skitten
Dec. 20th, 2008 01:01 pm (UTC)
hope you feel better soon- edited (sorry about the bad typing_)
I have to say that you're such an incredible man *hug*.... Many people just toss it off by saying "I'm not sexist".... denying women their right to full expression of sexuality(from both ends realluy) is tearing at the very core of their being...
I'm almost 41 & I feel like I've barely even *begun* to embrace my sexuality.....
I feel that I took it all in- to be openly sexual? I felt that was just wrong...
ridiculously divorce & meeting a poly man opened my eyes & my heart to the opportunities that life has to offer....to love & lust fully expressed.... Of course I can't share anything of this with my parents whom I'm pretty close to which sucks.... they've bought into this. In fact, there was this memorable time when my dad confessed to me that he was at the ;library & he found this woman he ddnt know attractive.... In order to not face this confusing sentiment he turned right around & left the library immediately....
while I have sweet memories of my parents smooching on the stairs they are no longer doing that. My mom is taking my dad for granted & they are sleeping in seperate bedrooms. I feel for my dad because I know that he's intimacy starved & lonely. I know they are a product of their time - marry one & stick with that one & no other for the rest of your life.... while I know there is love well hidden I think it's such a shame that my mother has bought into the "over 50 so who needs sex?" bullshit.... that's the other side of the coin. Older women aren't allowed to even *appear* sexual because somehow that makes them an *aging* whore & that's the most horrifying concept in this society which looks at the old & older as non-beings and women as useless if they aren't fertile but if they dare to enjoy their fertility then look out...
ummm....
oh wow....
You rubbed off on me *lol*
*heh*
embarassed.....
I stand by what I said though :-D

Edited at 2008-12-20 01:06 pm (UTC)
terriaminute
Dec. 20th, 2008 03:08 pm (UTC)
:-)
I'm 51. I've never been shy about sex, but I was and am extremely picky. I also seem to mate for life. But casual touching and flirting, oh, when the limits are clear that's so much fun!

I need to establish limits. I broke someone's heart once, long ago, so I am cautious about when and to whom I indicate interest or return interest. I still hate that I caused so much pain.

Recently, a good friend convinced me that he found me desirable. He's 20 years younger. Wow, that was an eye-opener! Since then, I've explored more aspects of sex than in the preceding decades, and has it been fun!

So, we who are 50 or older, I consider that middle aged. I hope I'm wrong and it's actually still quite young as the scientists find me ways to live longer! Never stop exploring, paying attention, trying new things, and saying what you think. Labels are only what you load them with emotionally. Your choice. I loved tinuvial's definition of slut. Perfect!
Re: :-) - skitten - Dec. 20th, 2008 04:19 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: :-) - terriaminute - Dec. 20th, 2008 04:55 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: :-) - skitten - Dec. 20th, 2008 05:46 pm (UTC) - Expand
skitten
Dec. 20th, 2008 01:27 pm (UTC)
you're not the only one who couldn't sleep last night- I'm going to write a post about a concept that I'm uncertain will ever fly but is related to the ranty coment I made.... I would love to hear what you think of it....
redhotlips
Dec. 20th, 2008 02:34 pm (UTC)
What is not understood is often feared. For men in particular, who can not experience 'female' it is logical that fear should fill in the place of understanding. There are societies and cultures that also went the other way when it came to women's sexuality and fertility, had elaborate rituals to ensure that the unknown was respected and celebrated.

And yes, zaiah is quite right. A group of girls is very very competitive. We're competing for finite resources: the 'right' attention, the best status possible, the best man possible etc. Perhaps it's partly biological imperative: set oneself up for the best genes, the best security in order to make child rearing easier.

Whatever the reason behind it, girls use their intuition and superior communication skills to their full advantage by turning on other girls and getting them exactly where it hurts that particular individual.
nilesta
Dec. 20th, 2008 03:40 pm (UTC)
I don't believe I've ever been called anything, and I've said lots of such thing on my journal.

I get yelled at more often about my dislike for organized religion than I do any sexual proclivity.

I do remember, however, being labled a slut in elementary school. Not because I had sex, I was a virgin at the time, but because I had breasts.

I think women being called out on sexual matters has more to do with how much someone thinks it might hurt them, or shame them. No question a lot of people don't like my sex talk -- equally not in question is the fact that if they did open their mouth, I certainly wouldn't be shamed, hurt, or even impressed.

If they know you'll call them out, they're less likely to say it. And unfortunately, a good number of women don't feel allowed to call anyone else out. Another little insidious societal thing -- good girls do not stand up for themselves.
(Deleted comment)
fangirl715
Dec. 20th, 2008 04:25 pm (UTC)
Re: Hypothesis
It's the exact same thinking (IMNSHO) that's behind a lot of the hatred towards fat women out there. If Female X wants Male Y, and has gone to all kinds of trouble to be attractive in a societally appropriate way, especially if this involved a lot of self-denial or physical discomfort, only to have Male Y decide that Female XX is the one he really wants...hoo boy, watch the shit hit the fan. Female XX "winning" upsets the hierarchical apple cart, shows that all of Female X's hard work and suffering has been for nothing, AND rubs Female X's nose in just how powerless she really is when it comes to mate selection*--she may be the Alpha Female of the group, but this is totally outside her control--and that simply Cannot Be Allowed.

It's been my experience that other women can either be incredibly supportive, or mindblowingly backstabbing, sometimes both at different times, but usually not anywhere in the middle. If that makes me a bad feminist, well, so be it; but all the talk in the world about sisterhood being powerful isn't going to make any difference if we don't admit how the situation stands right now.

*Actually, when you get down to it, we're all fairly powerless in terms of picking partners; we can be interested in someone, but if they don't return our interest, there's really not a lot we can do about it, esp. if the interest or lack thereof goes right back to good old chemistry. (Anyone who's ever felt "I should want So-and-So, but I just don't--why?!?" knows exactly what I mean.)
Re: Hypothesis - red_girl_42 - Dec. 20th, 2008 09:17 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Hypothesis - tacit - Dec. 22nd, 2008 09:55 pm (UTC) - Expand
writerspleasure
Dec. 20th, 2008 07:11 pm (UTC)
hope you feel better - and bravo on the realization. :)
tacit
Dec. 22nd, 2008 09:55 pm (UTC)
Thanks! Getting there, slowly.
ashbet
Dec. 20th, 2008 08:01 pm (UTC)
My girlfriend and I had a very eye-opening conversation with her husband about this fairly recently -- he had been totally unaware of the fact that most of the female-competitiveness/normative-rule-enforcing behavior even *existed* -- and he's a 41-year-old man with tons of female friends and a pretty good understanding of How People Work -- but this went on totally under his radar.

Hope you're feeling better soon!

-- A <3
dorklord07
Dec. 20th, 2008 08:09 pm (UTC)
Me myself, having always been of overly capitalist mind set, always thought such brandings of 'slut', at least in modern society, had more to do with reasource scarcity than anything else. Like this:

Women (who don't comment on this journal XD) are generally the ones who control who gets sexy times and who doesn't (I would use 'gatekeepers' here, but I can't remember who said it, and, as such, can't reference it appropriately.) But since these women are in control of sex, they put a lot of time and effort into deciding what males they want to mate with, whether the criteria be who made the touch down or who's funnier or whatever.

These women build up giant lists and criteria, hierarchies of overarching reach and importance, and expect all others to maintain the status quo; in such a way, they can control the 'sex market'. Those who opperate outside this 'market' are branded for not following the established rules of society: scab or slut or underseller.

In this way, people who decide to give away sex without going through the 'proper channels' 'devaluate' sex (in a scarcity manor; sex is still pretty fucking awesome no matter how you look at it). The women who have put such great effort into building up the price of sex are undercut and all the work they put into thier 'product' has gone to waste.

Obviously, there's some problems with this model, put since I'm on dial-up and it's my own goddamn arguement, I'm not going to point them out. XD nah! nah! nah! nah!
sevoo
Dec. 20th, 2008 08:34 pm (UTC)
In mainstream culture, women are told a zillion times a day that this hierarchy is important. That it's the only way we'll ever manage to gain any status, any power, any security, any love, any anything.

The dominant culture brainwashes us into wasting our energy fighting each other and that makes it all harder to do the work to break down the brainwashing, find like-minded people, and rise up and depose the existing hierarchy.

That's one of the primary tools of power in human society -- keep the less-empowered fighting among themselves, so they don't fight their oppressors.
james_the_evil1
Dec. 21st, 2008 02:12 am (UTC)
The planet doesn't have a single "dominant culture" but this sort of behavior in one form or another can be seen in multiple cultures worldwide & thru history.

Many so-called "societal imperatives" (certainly not ALL, but many) evolved partly thru biological imperatives as much as for the purpose of creating societal control methods, and this's more likely to be the former than the later.
buzz_chick
Dec. 20th, 2008 09:16 pm (UTC)
I hate social games, whether the dating game or office politics.

(I do enjoy other social games, such as Life or Monopoly, however. But I digress.)

I don't know if, as an outsider, I've made those observations in my own life. I think it varies greatly on the people involved. I gravitated toward people who may be considered "geeky" or "unique." These people generally reject those sorts of games because they're just not focused on "fitting in" but rather on ideas or tasks. In other words, they just have better things to do. And in the final analysis, those people are just more interesting and less stressful to be around. When you're a teenager or in your early 20s (sometimes beyond) that may not be so easy to recognize, so it comes with pain and loneliness.

I mean, imagine, valuing people for who they are on the inside instead of what they have, or what they look like, or how popular they are. What a concept.


DISCLAIMER: I could be wrong.
buzz_chick
Dec. 20th, 2008 09:19 pm (UTC)
p.s. This may explain why I haven't had many girl friends in the past.
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
( 101 comments — Leave a comment )