(Untitled)

[bludragon]

There is an old saying: "Women would rule the world, if they didn't hate each other so much

Comments

[little_e_]

I think cattiness is a behavior people learn (or at least don't unlearn) in elementary/middle/highschool. We shove kids into these institutions where the rules are arbitrary, their social statuses are arbitrary, etc., and then they have to basically structure their own society. Since there's almost nothing in the way of real feedback on how effective someone is at contributing to that society (being particularly good at math, say, is not going to make the cafeteria food improve,) the result is that the entire social order is based on arbitrary crap, like how attractive someone is or how good they are at obeying a set of random social rules.

Wherever you are in the system, everyone below you is a potential threat, and you maintain your position in the system by maintaining the system--thus we see even people on the fringes competing to insult and degrade people even 'lower' than them, even as they claim to hate the identical behavior in those 'above' them.

Many of the successful women in business are the same women who were on top

[bludragon]

Here's a question for you to consider: if a group of random teenagers were robbed of all posessions and clothing and dumped on a desert island, would they reinvent cliques and social castes?

I guess my point is how much of these arbitrary pecking orders in high school (or corporate America) are simply human nature acting out?

[little_e_]

On a desert island, I think the teenager who's best at finding coconuts and fresh water would quickly become king. In the 'natural state', our abilities have some impact on our environment. A strong person can build a better shelter or protect their stash of coconuts. A friendly person with good 'people skills' can organize people into a building team to do things an individual couldn't do alone.

Obviously they'd still have some amount of cliques and hierarchies, but I think that since their positions would be secured by some sort of external feedback (such as food production,) less of it would need to be maintained through strict social regulation.

I think we're basically always acting out some aspect of human nature, but the problem is that our natures aren't really designed for schools. What works well to keep you alive on a desert island isn't going to help you in the cafeteria.

Of course, there's always Lord of the Flies.

[bludragon]

Well, I suspect the one who was the best at bullying and talking would rise to the top most quickly.

As in management, people don't respond to hard work, they respond to people who can command others to do hard work.

[heratyck]

haha.... I was just talking about this last night after watching a documentary about the racial tension and gang problems found in pelican bay state prison... Altho the question I posed was what if we took a bunch of infants of different races and raised them all together, never making a distinction about any differences... Would they still break off into different groups?

I think that ultimately they would... Humans just seem to be inherently clannish....

[bludragon]

There's an old saying: "Ultimately, racism can only be defeated in the bedroom."

[little_e_]

Given enough people and enough time, I think people would probably break into groups, but I don't think they'd be the same ones we have now, simply because 'race' itself means different things in different countries--that is, the boundaries we draw are largely cultural. So throw people into a different culture in which the current racial demographics don't exist, and I think they'll find ways to divide themselves up, but they'd be different ways from the ways we do it.

They'll probably still figure out that some of them have different genitalia, though. That division seems basically consistent across most cultures.

[sirenz]

Ack, don't even get me started on mommy-tracking!

[little_e_]

Yes, gods forbid women go into traditionally female roles. Female roles are obviously inferior to male ones, and the only way for a woman to be truly respected is for her to act male in every way possible, because everything male is superior to everything female.

[bludragon]

Perhaps this is my postfeminist deconstructionism talking, but I would twist that just a bit to say most people in America are taught to associate strength and authority with masculinity.

I'm not convinced it has to be that way: visit Haiti or Jamaica, and you'll see plenty of women who possess a generous amount of masculine authority.

[little_e_]

"...That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?"

Sojourner Truth
Delivered 1851
Women's Convention, Akron, Ohio

[bludragon]

Her words are tragic and noble. But the biggest tragedy of all is how hard she wrestles with the semantics and associations of the word 'woman'.

To this day, I wince whenever I hear any woman say "Strong yet feminine".